Then the sponsors will control the shows.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Trump funding cuts to PBS/NPR
- Thread starter Yabadabado1
- Start date
- Status
Sponsors have not controlled shows since the days of network radio in the 30's and 40's when advertisers "owned" most of the biggest shows and negotiated with the web to carry them.
I meant to say: They have to report to stockholders. I doubt any of the radio companies deliver a dividend.
While fewer and far between, i dont work for commercial stations who try to actually walk the walk after talking the talk.. and serving community. im still invovled with one that is a perfect example of small town commercial radio done right.
Last edited:
True...on not having access to those departments...but check the amount of reporters that WKSU has vs the output...Ideastream Public Media is the only pub radio station in the nation with a Chief Experience Officer. Really? Everyone else can survive without one, but they need one? If you look at the salaries the top ten people make st IPM, the $ isn't being reinvested in the community, it's going to fat paychecks. Folks at IPM are commanding big market pub radio salaries without producing anything of note, in what has become a shrinking market
Not in the way that sponsors controlled network radio in the pre-TV era, but some local sponsors still exert their influence. One car dealer would not close a deal unless the station broadcast "live" from his dealership every Saturday with lengthy cut-ins featuring his sales people. The PD fought against it, but the Sales Department won. Programming was compromised for the buck.
It's really funny. I've been on these boards since 2008, and I'm used to seeing people complain about iHeart, Cumulus, and Audacy firing staff or paying people poorly. All the penny pinching done at all the big radio companies so their CEOs get to fly in private planes. Every year, all the staff cuts the companies make. But it's rare to see people who love radio complaining about radio stations with too much staff making too much money.
Staffing or salaries aren't the issue here. The issue is federal money was appropriated because congress passed a law. These radio stations applied for the money, and it was granted. They did the paperwork and they qualify. That's how it works if you seek federal funding. You have to jump through the government hoops. These radio stations did what was required, and they received the funding. Now, a president comes along, and says he's rescinding their funding because he doesn't like the news reporting. He doesn't have that right. That's why he's being sued.
Elon Musk's companies, Tesla and SpaceX receive $38 billion in various government subsidies. Not one of them was cut when he fired thousands of government employees. In fact, he insisted the government increase funding for SpaceX. The FCC Chairman brings up a Musk contract that was cut during the previous administration. You're so concerned about the salaries of public radio employees, but not about Elon Musk. It's the same public-private partnership that exists in public radio. Just because they receive federal funding doesn't mean they're government entities. They're all private companies just like Tesla. The federal funding the stations receive is based on the local corporate money those stations raise. The people who raise that corporate money get a commission for doing that. It's all part of the law that congress passed.
Yes, if government funding gets cut from public radio, people will get fired and salaries will get cut. That's how budgeting works. They budgeted for a certain amount of money based on existing contracts, and some of that money gets cut. They can't operate at a loss. They will do what all the commercial radio companies do and fire staff. It's already happening at radio stations around the country right now in anticipation of these cuts. That doesn't make what the president is trying to do legal or constitutional, and it doesn't affect the right of NPR to sue the president for what he's trying to do.
Last edited:
True that the sponsors don't own the shows as they once did in radio and early TV. Single sponsors did buy entire shows until spot buying became the norm. And they wielded plenty of influence. Read about Rod Serling's battles with sponsors' demands with the original Twilight Zone.
But to say sponsors no longer have that kind of influence on radio or TV programming is incorrect. They actually have a great deal, if not all, the influence.
One of my mentors told me years ago the sole purpose of commercial broadcasting is to sell advertising time. All of it, TV and radio, is a show, an entertainment, designed to garner as many viewers/listeners as possible to attract advertisers. That includes the news, the earlier topic here. They will do whatever it takes to get that audience and the sponsors dictate what they want and like with their ad purchases. That even includes "public" or non profits who have to do the same to attract donors.
Does that mean that nothing true or real or of worth is ever aired? No, but honestly it's rare. The phrase"follow the money" is useful in determining that for the discerning viewer/listener.
But to say sponsors no longer have that kind of influence on radio or TV programming is incorrect. They actually have a great deal, if not all, the influence.
One of my mentors told me years ago the sole purpose of commercial broadcasting is to sell advertising time. All of it, TV and radio, is a show, an entertainment, designed to garner as many viewers/listeners as possible to attract advertisers. That includes the news, the earlier topic here. They will do whatever it takes to get that audience and the sponsors dictate what they want and like with their ad purchases. That even includes "public" or non profits who have to do the same to attract donors.
Does that mean that nothing true or real or of worth is ever aired? No, but honestly it's rare. The phrase"follow the money" is useful in determining that for the discerning viewer/listener.
Correct, and the reason why radio sounds the way it does is because the stations create programming to attract specific sales demographics. This is why classic hits radio stations don't play music from the 60s anymore. However, sales demos are not the motivation for public radio. That's why WCLV became a non-commercial station, and continues to play classical music, unaffected by the age of the audience.
Was it a Pacifica station?
CPB analysis shows overall growth in station revenue despite drop for radio - Current
“It seems like we are kind of over that pandemic hump as we look at things kind of evening out again,” said CPB COO Kathy Merritt.
current.org
Here is the current study CPB has released on station growth.
Totally agree...I guess I'm just making the point that if you are shelling out big dollars toward paychecks, it's not a good look, especially if you aren't producing...but you are 100% correct on the funding
Perhaps the assumption is that if you're asking for money, that means you're poor. In a way, anyone who is in the sales role, whether its at a commercial station or a non-profit, is asking for money. The exchange process is similar. The difference is in terms of what a non-com is allowed to say. But there are services rendered in exchange for money, whether you're a station member or a corporate sponsor. When they formed CPB and NPR, the intent was to create a professional non-commercial broadcasting system that held to the same standards as commercial companies. Just without the profit motive.
If you're listening to a non-commercial station, and you hear a pledge break, they're not "begging" for money. They're collecting for services rendered.
Last edited:
No. Although we did use some programming from Pacifica. Don't ask me what programs they were, I can barely remember my zip code at this point.
I've been at all kinds of stations, formats and markets. Even 20-some different countries. And I have had advertisers say that they don't want to be on a certain format or show, but I've never had an advertiser tell me / us what to do on the air. And most of my work has been in major markets ranging from New York City to Buenos Aires to Mexico City to LA to Houston and Chicago and the like, but I have been in places as small as Lago Agrio, Ecuador, Lake City, FL and Traverse City, MI.
There is a sort of advertiser prejudice for or against different formats. I was even on a call for KWKW in LA where an advertiser said, "I don't want those people in my stores".
You have that backwards. Radio stations know what kinds of audience advertisers seek... age range, gender, and so on. So we design formats that will attract that kind of listener. But the advertisers don't tell us how to do it. They simply have specific goals insofar as the target of their advertising, and if we want some of their money and we can deliver those goals, we send a seller to make a pitch.
You have it backwards. Radio stations look for the largest audiences possible so they can offer access to it for advertisers.
And, to make an example, if we know that nearly no business wants to spend ad dollars promoting their services to people over 65, then we don't program to that group. Commercial radio provides a service to businesses, and so we design each of our services to appeal to some part of the public advertisers want to reach.
I knew radio was in trouble when Lowry Mays [Clear Channel] started buying up stations left and right and said "My job isn't to play music or other programs. It's to sell advertising." I thought "Idiot! You think people are going to tune in to hear ads? You have to give them a reason [music, etc.] to stick around long enough to LISTEN to your ads!" Spotify, Pandora, SiriusXM and other streaming services are probably sending flowers to his gravesite on his birthday because with that mindset their services probably wouldn't exist. Yes, they may play ads now and again for the "free" versions but at least it's not 10-18 minutes in a row.
People pay directly for streaming services. If broadcast radio stations could send listeners a bill, they wouldn't need advertising.
This thread is about public radio. On average about 7% of public radio listeners actually send them money. That's what happens with the honor system.
If people don't HAVE to pay, they won't. Even for commercial-free radio.
The fact is that since at least the late 1920's privately owned radio has been in the business of selling advertising. Our product is not "programming" but "listeners". We sell ears. Advertisers buy ears.
No station has 18 minutes in a row except... in the past... small town stations around Christmas and Labor Day and the 4th of July. The rest of us limit the ads to what will make us money but still attract listeners.
When I built my first FM, it was the only on in a market of a bit over a million people. When a few advertisers decided they wanted to be on the FM, I priced it so I could run 6 spots an hour, 20 seconds long each. That was two minutes of ads an hour. I could do it because I was the only FM in town, the station was on at every good store and boutique and restaurant in the city. But then other stations appeared, and over the years we all ended up selling 10 to 12 minutes worth of ads an hour because that is what the market would bear.
So it's a business. Our product is listeners. We make "listeners" by getting people to come to our radio station. When we do, we sell their attention to advertisers. We've been doing that for around 100 years.
Good point. That is what we call "infomercials" or brokered programming.However, if one did, I have a price for it.
- Status