Treat WXXI fairly in state budget

[The Voice of Reason]

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903010332

This editorial appeared in the March 1st edition of the Democrat & Chronicle by the president and CEO of WXXI.
I found both the article and comments posted by several individuals very interesting and wanted to pass them along to the readers of this board.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

http://wxxi.org/about/wxxiFY2008form990.PDF

Here is the 2007 990 tax form filed by WXXI. Get out your calculators and figure out who makes what. Take into account that this form does not include the salaries for some of the vice presidents.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

For those of you who didn't want to scan through the entire tax form here it is broken down. *Matter of public record.


*Norm Silverstein CEO and President - $277,600 + $35.000 in benefits, $10,000 expenses
*Sue Rogers- VP and station manager $154,400 + $25,000 in benefits, $ 5,000 expenses
*Kent Hatfield VP Engineering - $ 93,.600 + $13,000 in benefits
*Robin Stone VP Underwriting - $ 87,000 + $13,000 in benefits
*George Walter -Head Accountant $ 83,000 + $14,000 in benefits
*Elissa Orlando VP TV $ 83,000 + $ 6,000 in benefits
*Jeanne Fisher VP Radio $ 80,000 + $10,000 in benefits


These figures do not take into account what middle-managers at the station are paid.
This is why the station needs the $1.7 million the state gave them last year.

 

[x13thfloorrand]

I see a trend...

On one hand, we would all love to make this money in broadcasting in something that doesnt involve calling on the HUGE man for car commercials. On the other, its clearly a case of "do as I say, not as I do", analogous to the "Big Three" coming to Washington for a handout in the private jets. Eventually, when they realized that loss was real, they pulled the publicity stunt and drove in the Hybrid car from Michigan to Washington.

However, Theres a fair amount of truth that part-timers, evening staff, news and feature producers could be laid off should this funding proposal in NYS/US goverment come to fruition. Supposingly that's the "dead weight' these days. I cant speak for the public broadcasting world, but in todays radio, few people wear many hats.

If the Commissioner of the NFL can take a paycut north of 15%, then even a 10% cut by all top management would be nice.

So what happens next? I know I'll stop listening during the endless droval that is the "Membership Drive"

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Here is a solution

On one hand, we would all love to make this money in broadcasting in something that doesnt involve calling on the HUGE man for car commercials. On the other, its clearly a case of "do as I say, not as I do", analogous to the "Big Three" coming to Washington for a handout in the private jets. Eventually, when they realized that loss was real, they pulled the publicity stunt and drove in the Hybrid car from Michigan to Washington.

However, Theres a fair amount of truth that part-timers, evening staff, news and feature producers could be laid off should this funding proposal in NYS/US goverment come to fruition. Supposingly that's the "dead weight' these days. I cant speak for the public broadcasting world, but in todays radio, few people wear many hats.

If the Commissioner of the NFL can take a paycut north of 15%, then even a 10% cut by all top management would be nice.

So what happens next? I know I'll stop listening during the endless droval that is the "Membership Drive"

Here is a perfect example of what could be done locally to handle the budget crisis at WXXI.

http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090301/NEWS01/903010376

Notice in this article that executives are taking pay cuts along with the rest of the VPR staff. Does anyone think that idea has been suggested at 280 State Street?

 

[aaronread]

Well, if you total up those salaries, benefits and expenses you listed, you get $989,600. 15% of that is $148,440. If WXXI was getting $1.7 million, and the Paterson budget has a 50% cut, that means an $850,000 shortfall.

So even if you slashed the top executives' salaries/benefits by 15%, you'd still have a $700,000 shortfall. That's pretty goddamn hard to make up with a better fundraiser. And remember, this is all when underwriting revenue is plunging by 10, 20 even 50%.

Even if you slashed the salaries by 50% (and that's an ugly cut for any employee to take, even the boss) you'd still have a shortfall of over $350,000 just on the state aid. Again, even a really great year of fundraising isn't going to cover that big a gap...and I'm still not factoring for huge underwriting losses.

We argue until the cows come home about whether Norm, Sue, Kent, et al are overpaid or not...the bottom line is that cutting their salaries will not even come close to making up the revenue difference; the two issues are largely separate.

FWIW, I suspect the major reason for separation, and why the Times Argus article about Vermont Public Radio doesn't really apply here, is because WXXI is both a TV and a radio operation. TV is just inherently more expensive than radio is, and it's pubTV is also far more reliant on government subsidies (for good or ill) than public radio is. And let's not forget, you're heaping this on TV right when they're going through a massive government unfunded mandate to keep aging analog transmitters running nearly a half-year longer than anticipated or budgeted for. I believe in WXXI's case that could mean an extra $30-50k a month that's being flushed and swirling...thanks a lot, Mr. President and Congress.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Suggestion Box

A few observations:

1. WXXI - or any TV station - doesn't HAVE to keep the analog transmitter on. A number of stations across the country are shutting down analog simply because of the cost. With cable penetration, and the number of people who have already purchased HD-TVs and/or converters, the number of lost viewers would be minimal. Those who are lost are unlikely to make up a significant portion of the "donating" public. Turn it off and save a few jobs.

2. In the current environment, Silverstein is making too much money. He needs to make a gracious move to the tune of $50-$75K. Sue Rogers also needs to give back $20-$25K.

3. VPs are not overpaid - depending on just how hands-on they are and how far their duties extend.

4. The SUV ain't a big deal. It's probably leased anyway. Norm needs something that he can drive in a Rochester winter, and will carry several people in comfort.

 

[cee]

Couldn't all or most PBS/NPR stations just run all the network programming off the birds in an austere building at the transmitter site and from a local angle, just have a skeleton staff of a few dedicated staffers of on-air people, engineers, office staff and one manager? I mean would anyone watching or listening notice the difference? The old KB did legendary programming out of an old barn on Main St.

Behemoth. Give them nothing. PBS and NPR yes. Big local public broadcasting no. Give them nothing.

 

[SirRoxalot]

As far as local radio is concerned, public radio may be the last bastion of reliable news coverage. While public TV has little local programming, public radio provides valuable local coverage and discussion of issues in a much less politically charged environment than the yakkers on either side of commercial political spectrum.

 

[cee]

As far as local radio is concerned, public radio may be the last bastion of reliable news coverage. While public TV has little local programming, public radio provides valuable local coverage and discussion of issues in a much less politically charged environment than the yakkers on either side of commercial political spectrum.

You're absolutely right about that. I wish Rochester had another public news station, as Buffalo has WBFO in addition to WNED. WRUR(University of Rochester) should be that station, but unfortunately they are basically run by WXXI. While I am against big budget local public broadcasting, I've always thought local PBS affiliates should do a nightly news program that would be an alternative to regular local news. Sort of a local version of McNeill-Leher. Less emphasis on live reports and more emphasis on in-studio guests, etc.

 

[aaronread]

1. WXXI - or any TV station - doesn't HAVE to keep the analog transmitter on. A number of stations across the country are shutting down analog simply because of the cost.

Not true, the FCC is actually denying some TV's applications to shut down before the new date in June. Mind you, stations had to submit applications to shut down and they had less than 72 hours to do so after the announcement went out about it. And that 72 hours was over the weekend. Whatta mess. In deference to WXXI, I do believe that all the non-commercial stations were automatically granted the right to shut down immediately if they got their application in. FWIW, I don't know if (for engineering reasons) another station has to shut down in order for WXXI to fully move to digital...I don't think there was a frequency shuffle like that in their case, but I don't know for sure...no doubt Mr. Fybush does.

Ultimately I think WXXI opted to maintain analog operation for marketing reasons, though; the audience most likely to be affected by the analog shutdown is also the audience that tends to give the most money, watch the most, and complain the loudest when things change: the 54+ (and the high end of the 25-54) demo. I'm sure they'd LOVE to just pull the plug and save the money, but after the news went out about how the guvmint extended analog a little longer, I'm sure a lot of viewers would bitch and complain if WXXI shut down "early".

Granted, many of those viewers will bitch and complain anyways...and they'll refuse to get a converter box until they're forced to do so. But if WXXI waits until the FCC-mandated deadline, at least they can redirect the wrath towards the FCC instead of themselves.

As far as local radio is concerned, public radio may be the last bastion of reliable news coverage.

And local newspapers for that matter. There's a rapidly-growing movement in NPR to encourage local affiliates to pounce on the "opportunity" presented by local newspapers being flushed and swirling; in many communities the NPR affiliate may be the sole remaining source of local, independent news.

Couldn't all or most PBS/NPR stations just run all the network programming off the birds in an austere building at the transmitter site and from a local angle, just have a skeleton staff of a few dedicated staffers of on-air people, engineers, office staff and one manager?

It can easily cost $30,000 per MONTH to operate an analog transmitter. Presumably digital isn't all THAT much cheaper. Plus tower rent, studio rent, etc etc etc...and programming fees (which are hefty). You can't raise those kinds of funds on a skeleton crew. And even the skeleton crew you describe would mean a quarter-million in salary costs alone (and that's if everyone comes very cheap).

Radio, OTOH, can - in theory - operate on even less than a $30k a YEAR, not including programming fees, if the tower happens to be located, say, on campus. Mind you, a $30k/yr annual budget is a disaster waiting to happen, but it can sort-of be done.

 

[dampier]

This state is in absolute financial crisis and nobody wants to come on board and admit reality. We cannot afford full funding of ANY state expenditure. Everyone claims that any cut represents "unfair" treatment and it's not. I'm very progressive politically, but reality is something you cannot avoid. We are going to have to cut budgets and slash costs in this state, because the money just isn't there. It's not a question of what is fair, it's a question of living in the real world or fantasy land.

I'm outraged by the bloat on the top side of public broadcasting in Rochester. It's one of the primary reasons I won't contribute a penny to WXXI any longer. The Democrat & Chronicle rarely publishes a negative thing about WXXI. Should the public at large come to learn of the salaries and perks on the top end of WXXI management, it would devastate their pledge drives. Where is the money going? Programming or the SUV?

This is nothing I haven't said before. But just as I am totally unmoved by the scare tactics from the state employee unions about Paterson budget cuts running as 30 second spots, I am totally unimpressed with the whining from public broadcasting about state funding issues. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. Tighten the belt like everyone else until this catastrophic financial crisis is over and then let's see what can be done, but IMHO, I think the public should give with the full knowledge of what percentage of their pledge goes to programming, on-air staff, and equipment, and what goes to management salaries.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm outraged by the bloat on the top side of public broadcasting in Rochester. It's one of the primary reasons I won't contribute a penny to WXXI any longer. The Democrat & Chronicle rarely publishes a negative thing about WXXI. Should the public at large come to learn of the salaries and perks on the top end of WXXI management, it would devastate their pledge drives. Where is the money going? Programming or the SUV?

The newspaper and WXXI are in bed together. The editors of that paper are not about to print anything negative, let alone post the salaries of the top six wage earners. I showed a number of my colleagues at work just how much these managers made and their reaction was the same: total shock! I went back and looked over WXXI 990 form and also discovered that the host of the station's medical show "Second Opinion" is paid $75,000.
I don't care if that show is syndicated across the country, $75,000 is a hell of a lot of money just to host a TV show.

This is nothing I haven't said before. But just as I am totally unmoved by the scare tactics from the state employee unions about Paterson budget cuts running as 30 second spots, I am totally unimpressed with the whining from public broadcasting about state funding issues. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. Tighten the belt like everyone else until this catastrophic financial crisis is over and then let's see what can be done, but IMHO, I think the public should give with the full knowledge of what percentage of their pledge goes to programming, on-air staff, and equipment, and what goes to management salaries.

And my reply, once again, is that WXXI will never break down where the money goes because the public would have a fit if they knew a large chunk of their donations goes right into the pockets of six individuals.

 

[audio4tv]

While I am against big budget local public broadcasting, I've always thought local PBS affiliates should do a nightly news program that would be an alternative to regular local news. Sort of a local version of McNeill-Leher. Less emphasis on live reports and more emphasis on in-studio guests, etc.

WXXI currently does a weekly program, Need to Know, that tries to do this. At one time, they did a daily 1/2 hour show like this. It would be cost prohibative to do this today, no matter what your take is on salaries. The added staff, equipment, and cost would far outstrip any savings in cutting the "bloat" as one poster believes. This is one reason the show was scaled back to a weekly.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I went back and looked over WXXI 990 form and also discovered that the host of the station's medical show "Second Opinion" is paid $75,000.
I don't care if that show is syndicated across the country, $75,000 is a hell of a lot of money just to host a TV show.[/b]

Actually, it's not a lot of money for the host of a syndicated show. The guy who hosts it ain't a local mook looking for face time. He's an experienced broadcast correspondent, a medical doctor, and likely provides a lot of the contacts for the show. I don't know how much further his roled extends into the production side of the show, but the more important question is how the show affects the bottom line.

Does "Second Opinion" make money, break even, or lose money? If it either makes money or breaks even, it's a winner. If it's cheaper than comparable PBS or other source programming, and still gets WXXI's name out beyond Rochester, it's still a winner.

Don't follow corporate radio's practice of cutting without looking at all of the ramifications. Cuts need to be made, but they MUST be judicious, and positively affect the bottom line.

 

[TheBigA]

I've always thought local PBS affiliates should do a nightly news program that would be an alternative to regular local news.

Local TV news is extremely expensive. I worked for a state-owned PBS that did exactly what you suggest, and it ate up most of the annual budget, and got the fewest viewers of any show on the station. And got no membership money during pledge week. It was a total loss. So they dropped it, and just went 24/7 PBS, and improved the bottom line.

 

[aaronread]

Local TV news is extremely expensive. I worked for a state-owned PBS that did exactly what you suggest, and it ate up most of the annual budget, and got the fewest viewers of any show on the station. And got no membership money during pledge week. It was a total loss. So they dropped it, and just went 24/7 PBS, and improved the bottom line.

This sort-of touches on the fallacy of "localism". A lot of people like to toss around the word "local" as the savior to all of radio's problems. Yet a lot of NPR listeners prefer listening to national shows from NPR, rather than the local ones produced at their local affiliate. Same for conserva-talkers with Rush Limbaugh. He's not local, yet he's often the highest ratings on the station in question.

It's not really "local" that gets listeners: it's "quality programming". Granted, a quality local show is a great thing. But most listeners will take a quality national show over a mediocre (or even a "fairly decent") local show any day of the week.

OTOH, of course, part of selling your overall image to listeners is by pointing towards the great shows you produce exclusively for the local community. For us pubradio folks, that can be important come fundraiser week. But for pubTV, I think the huge costs of local production probably outweigh the fundraising benefits by a wide margin; unless the show stands on its own, it's not worth subsidizing it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The danger with full-time syndication is that viewers or listeners don't need the local station to get the content. Increasingly, that programming is available directly from the syndicator, often on-demand in the form of an audio or video podcast. The local station establishes the popularity of a program, and ultimately the syndicator may bypass the local station to deliver the content.

All syndication is not the answer. All local isn't the answer if it can't sustain itself. The real answer is quality programming that addresses the concerns of the viewers. Some people will have you believe that there's a lack of talent capable of producing superior local programming. I see and hear plenty of talent that's hamstrung by local programming restrictions, and lack of support in the form of prep time, trained personnel, and equipment. In Buffalo, WBEN features Rush, but his numbers are often beaten by the local shows that surround his. In this case, there's no local talk programming opposite Rush to give him a run for his money.

There's also the idea that radio and TV stations have an obligation to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Local programming does that best, especially when discussing local issues. We have different layers of government. We have different layers of issues. All need to be included if we are to have a well informed populace, which is critical to our democratic republic. Public broadcasting may be the last bastion of that type of coverage. I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars going to public broadcasting if they help fill the widening gap in news and public affairs coverage.

 

[TheBigA]

The danger with full-time syndication is that viewers or listeners don't need the local station to get the content. Increasingly, that programming is available directly from the syndicator, often on-demand in the form of an audio or video podcast.

This is why Kevin Klose is no longer President of NPR. He was moving in that direction, and the local stations, who control NPR, objected. Listeners can hear specific stories from NPR shows at npr.com, but they can't hear streams of the entire show there.

Some people will have you believe that there's a lack of talent capable of producing superior local programming. I see and hear plenty of talent that's hamstrung by local programming restrictions, and lack of support in the form of prep time, trained personnel, and equipment.

The money has to come from somewhere. If you're in the business of providing a product, you are always going to be "hamstrung" by the limitations of a budget. I was in a meeting where the budget of a PBS series was being discussed, and it was four times the price of a similar cable TV show. Why so much? Because they applied for and got a sponsor to pay for it. So what I'm saying is that it's not that there's a lack of local talent, but often the best local talent isn't willing to work for the money that's available. To get the kind of budget one would need, one needs to seek a larger source of money. Back in the 30s, small radio stations did well produced shows like the Louisiana Hayride or the Grand Ole opry. But they needed a national outlet like NBC to provide the budget. There was a time when WXXI was a program supplier for PBS. There are corporations in the Rochester area (Kodak, etc) that provided the funding. But that was a long time ago.

There's also the idea that radio and TV stations have an obligation to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Local programming does that best, especially when discussing local issues.

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it, but radio & TV stations have no obligation to agree with your opinion. And for the last 50 years, the government has not enforced that obligation, and if anything, it has reduced the obligation.

I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars going to public broadcasting if they help fill the widening gap in news and public affairs coverage.

We don't have the ability to pick and choose how are tax dollars are spent. I didn't agree with the Iraq war, but I couldn't withhold the percentage of my taxes that went to fund it. As a citizen, you can donate to public broadcasting. For that, the broadcasters say "thank you." But just because you think tax dollars are well spent for broadcasting doesn't give it a priority over health care or other more basic functions.

 

[cee]

Local TV news is extremely expensive. I worked for a state-owned PBS that did exactly what you suggest, and it ate up most of the annual budget, and got the fewest viewers of any show on the station. And got no membership money during pledge week. It was a total loss. So they dropped it, and just went 24/7 PBS, and improved the bottom line.

I'm not suggesting they do an actual high brow version of a local newscast with reporters, editors, etc. etc. I'm thinking more like one person doing the whole show, perhaps starting off with a couple minutes of reviewing the big local stores followed by a couple interviews with local news makers. And take phone calls from (intelligent) viewers. This would be a nice adjunct to the regular news coverage with in-depth conversations on local issues. Of course, nobody will do it.