US radio, especially public radio, is like a bad restaurant ...

[MattParker]

Menu limited, portions too small and the food is bad.

Very interesting - and provocative - article in Sunday's (09/26/2010) LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-cultural-exchange-radio-20100926,0,86260.story

Radio 4 in Britain is evidence that the medium is as popular as ever
More Britons are listening to the radio than ever — over 90% of all adults in the U.K. — and the channel offers quality programs unequaled in the States.

The article also points out that Brits listen longer. US time spent listening is two-thirds what it is in Britain. The article attributes radio's popularity in Britain to a combination of quality and variety which makes US public radio sound pathetic by comparison. Even US radio during the medium's so-called "golden age" seems anemic next to Radio 4 (what used to be called "The Home Service"). And Radio 4 is only one BBC radio "channel" among 10 national channels and 40 regional channels (plus "independent" or commercial radio).

The article makes the case that radio over there is still relevant to real people (folks other than people in the biz and radio geeks) and beyond that, still has buzz. It's one thing to think radio has lost it from listening but it's another to think radio has lost it, maybe never had, from hearing what others can get.

 

[tomservo]

Um, I don't think it's really fair to compare US and UK radio. They're really two different beasts in so many ways… regulation, programming choices, stations' geographic "coverage", etc.

Radio in the US might've turned out the same if we'd had TV license fees and national networks with heavy government intervention. But we chose the free'r route, for better or for worse.

 

[aaronread]

Soooo...basically this is an argument for the US government to basically add a decimal point or two to the amount CPB gets funded every year?

 

[MattParker]

@Zach: I don't see this as unfair comparison. It's not about financing. Listeners don't care about that. It's about good programming that engrosses and entertains. It's about programming people listen to, not just have on. Brits have all the same media options we do (maybe more). Yet a lot of them are still listening to radio and talking about radio at work. Here radio has no buzz. HD Radio? What's that? But you can turn around without hearing about tablets, smartphones, apps and Internet TV boxes. Radio has made itself irrelevant to most people.

@Aaron: As I say, it's not about where the money comes from. Public radio could do fine without CPB money. And advertiser supported radio might do better with engaging programming.

 

[TheBigA]

It's not about financing. Listeners don't care about that. It's about good programming that engrosses and entertains.

That's not what the article says:

"The reason why radio sounds so different here from North America is completely a product of public funding," said Grant Goddard, a London-based radio analyst. "

He's right. Public funding takes the profit motove out of programming. You're free from the lowest common denominator, and able to do the absolute best, regardless of the popularity.

 

[MattParker]

It's not about financing. Listeners don't care about that. It's about good programming that engrosses and entertains.

That's not what the article says:

"The reason why radio sounds so different here from North America is completely a product of public funding," said Grant Goddard, a London-based radio analyst. "

He's right. Public funding takes the profit motove out of programming. You're free from the lowest common denominator, and able to do the absolute best, regardless of the popularity.

A lot of advertisers are not targeting the lowest common denominator. And public radio does operate on the profit motive, regardless of what they say. And they "sell" to some of those "class, not mass" advertisers.

A lot of for profit businesses operate with a commitment to quality (like Japanese automotive and electronics manufacturers). In many industries you can make a direct comparison between American companies committed only to quarterly numbers and overseas companies committed to quality, customer satisfaction and long-term growth and profitability. The same disease that has destroyed the radio hardware industry in the US is destroying the radio software (programming, content) industry.

 

[TheBigA]

A lot of advertisers are not targeting the lowest common denominator.

Really? Do you talk with their ad agencies? If you did, you'd discover that regardless of the client's image, at the end of the day it's all about delivering the maximum audience for the minimum price. Even companies like Rolex and Hallmark work that way.

And public radio does operate on the profit motive, regardless of what they say. And they "sell" to some of those "class, not mass" advertisers.

Part of that is because they lost public funding. So they have to go after the same companies the commercial broadcasters target. Back when almost all of their funding came from the government, they were more like the BBC.

But the bottom line is that you're wrong when you say programming isn't related to funding. It's ALL about where the money comes from. And right now, we're trying to kill any kind of government subsidy for broadcasting. It will take us right back to where we were in 1964 when Newton Minnow called it a "vast wasteland."

 

[MattParker]

A lot of advertisers are not targeting the lowest common denominator.

Really? Do you talk with their ad agencies? If you did, you'd discover that regardless of the client's image, at the end of the day it's all about delivering the maximum audience for the minimum price. Even companies like Rolex and Hallmark work that way.

Maximum target audience. The operative word is "target." Add with "minimum waste." Hallmark is a mass marketer. Rolex is not.

 

[TheBigA]

It all goes back to funding.

 

[Talk_Dude]

A lot of advertisers are not targeting the lowest common denominator.

Really? Do you talk with their ad agencies? If you did, you'd discover that regardless of the client's image, at the end of the day it's all about delivering the maximum audience for the minimum price. Even companies like Rolex and Hallmark work that way.

That's not quite accurate. Some companies deliberately choose to maximize their profit margins by attempting to create a mystique about their product being exclusive. Rolex is an excellent example. They only advertise in upscale media to maintain their aura of luxury. Their products aren't that much better than any other brand of watch, but no other brand has the same status symbol cachet. Their customers don't buy Rolexes to be better able to tell the time, they buy them to flaunt their ability to afford one.

A more accurate observation is that advertising is intended to convey the message about the product that best increases the advertiser's profits. Mass market products and services use mass market advertising, but niche market products use different strategies.

Public radio seems to attract underwriting from companies that benefit from having a "good citizen" image, even if that is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

 

[TheBigA]

A more accurate observation is that advertising is intended to convey the message about the product that best increases the advertiser's profits. Mass market products and services use mass market advertising, but niche market products use different strategies.

But the topic here is mass media, because that's what BBC 4 is. They get their funding from taxes, we get our funding from advertisers. Who has the better programming?

 

[MattParker]

Radio stations stopped being mass media almost 40 years ago. Now they are targeted media. They have distinct formats intended to reach specific audiences.

Forty years ago BBC4 was called the Home Service. Now the BBC (and commercial broadcasters in the UK) also offer a range for specific formats, targeting specific audiences.

The issue is who produces the better on-air product. Radio people in the US need to stop making excuses for how poor their product is. The radio industry in the US is effective only at driving away listeners and advertisers, and at making excuses for their departures.

The Harvard Business School has a collection of case studies for companies that aren't around any more. Radio people might do well to study them. Many of those case studies report a cycle of cutting costs and quality, and raising prices to increase revenue. Predictably, they lose customers. So they cut costs and quality and raise prices again to make up for the lost revenue. They lose more customers, so ... They also make statements about how it's not their fault, it's changing market, changing tastes, bad economy .... any number of things. And about how customers should understand their internal problems.

 

[TheBigA]

The issue is who produces the better on-air product. Radio people in the US need to stop making excuses for how poor their product is. The radio industry in the US is effective only at driving away listeners and advertisers, and at making excuses for their departures.

Absolute BS. Radio producers create exactly what advertisers want. No one is making excuses. Every other content producer, from satellite to Pandora, is trying to copy the radio model.

You keep dodging the real issue: It all comes down to money and where it comes from. In subscription models, the listeners pay for what they want. In ad-supported models, the goal is to maximize audience. In government-funded media, like BBC4, it's very different. That's why the rest of the world prefers government funding to the US system.

The Harvard Business School has a collection of case studies for companies that aren't around any more. Radio people might do well to study them.

Which once again supports the government funded option, and demonstrates why other countries have gone with government funding of broadcasting. A lot of the businesses in the study are now owned and operated by the government, like mass transit.

Competition leads to price wars. When prices go down, costs have to follow. When you cut costs, people get fired. That's why most products we buy today aren't made in the US anymore. It's cheaper to make them elsewhere. In the government funded option, you have no competition, prices stay the same, and when costs rise, you increase taxes. Simply put, broadcasting should not be a business, because there's no profit in public service.

 

[MattParker]

@A:

You keep dodging the real issue: It all comes down to money and where it comes from.

This is where we don't agree. I say, to the listener, it doesn't matter where the money comes. The point is, where ever the money comes from, if you give an audience what it wants, they will listen. Where the money comes from is the broadcasters' concern, not the listeners'.

Simply put, broadcasting should not be a business, because there's no profit in public service.

I have to admit, that is something to think about. Maybe so.

BUT, if you go that route: No pledge drives. No corporate underwriting.

 

[TheBigA]

This is where we don't agree. I say, to the listener, it doesn't matter where the money comes. The point is, where ever the money comes from, if you give an audience what it wants, they will listen.

The only way the audience gets exactly what they want is in the subscription model. Otherwise, they get what attracts the biggest number. Giving the audience what it wants under this model requires compromise. The problem today is every individual in the audience wants their own personal radio station.

In the way advertising is done, unless you have an exclusive sponsor, one who pays for the whole show, you will always run into differences in goals of advertisers. So when Hallmark is an exclusive title sponsor, as they are usually in their TV specials, they get to control the content. When it's a bulk advertiser who buys a spot within a cluster of ten other advertisers, they have less say, and all they care about is CPM and TRPs. Believe me...I fight this battle every day.

In either case, you have to follow the money. The source of the funding determines everything. That is just the practicality of the situation. Usually the biggest discontent from the listener comes from the compromise required in order to satisfy the requirements of the advertisers. The ONLY solution is subscribe to Pandora. Then you get what you want. Lots of broadcasters are creating web-based competitors for Pandora, because there's money there. But it's nowhere near what they make with broadcast.

BUT, if you go that route: No pledge drives. No corporate underwriting.

That's fine, but the government funding MUST be 100%, as it is in England.

 

[MattParker]

BUT, if you go that route: No pledge drives. No corporate underwriting.

That's fine, but the government funding MUST be 100%, as it is in England.

Agreed. With an absolute firewall to keep out political interference (like we have with the CPB).

 

[Talk_Dude]

BUT, if you go that route: No pledge drives. No corporate underwriting.

That's fine, but the government funding MUST be 100%, as it is in England.

Agreed. With an absolute firewall to keep out political interference (like we have with the CPB).

You mean a firewall made of cardboard? What good would that do?

 

[bturner]

Interesting discussion.

With a tax on radio and television at the consumer level, there is a certain accountibility not even found in public radio in the USA, yet narrowcasting is not possible in the BBC model, at least as a fulltime format.

Even with US Public Radio there is a certain emphasis on programming for funding. It is the same concept of US commercial radio. The only difference might be the sales side tends to manipulate programming in commercial radio but Public Radio sales seems to be driven by product versus sales dictating formatics to programming to maximize sales.

The thing I'd like to know is what the average listener thinks of BBC and paying an annual license fee. Is this a painless tax for a radio service that the public desires and of the standard the public wants or is the tax considered a required tax to be squandered by a government entity that serves only a portion of the general public. Would the British primarily commercial radio listener resent paying a tax each year?

Imagine at 5.5 (cannot recall exactly) radios per person in the USA and how much money that would be....1.5 billion radios multiplied by an annual tax, of say, just $5. The numbers really soar.

I'm assuming the tax is a minimal annual tax.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Let's say I run an NPR station that happens to be in the commercial band, and I happen to get approval from NPR to run commercials during Morning Edition. I change my format to look like this:
:01-:04 NPR News headlines
:04-:09 Spots
:09-:30 Morning Edition
:30-:35 Spots
:35-:00 Morning Edition

Now, Morning Edition is still produced by NPR in the very same way that it is produced for other stations, with long news and feature stories. Just for argument, my station is either running Morning Edition off the NPR feed, or running spots, there are no other local insertions.

Will fewer people listen than if the station was running Morning Edition as we know it today? Would revenues be higher or lower?

My thought is that fewer people would listen, but revenues would go up.

 

[TheBigA]

Gee...two breaks an hour. Very PPM-friendly.

Anyway...the complication of combining a non-profit with commercial (coupled with the Reagan budget cuts) is what drove NPR to the brink in 1983.