Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!

[The Voice of Reason]

That said, it's hardly uncommon for broadcast non-profits to get a huge grant and suddenly think the money will last forever...and they put too much time/effort/money into simply producing the show instead of figuring out how to make it last when the grant money runs out.

My, my...we have taken Americana to the non-coms? Agreement at 100% double AA!!! Looks very familiar to bail-out's ...no? I haven't decided if this is human nature in the biz world, or just plain ignorance (or my life experience..as long as it has now been...says otherwise ;D). I'm not sure 'ole George had this in mind when they put him on the dollar...but it sure makes for some "not show schmart" financial exchanges!!

I have experienced that...it takes longer to make it than to spend it....ERGO...when that booty check shows in the mail....HELLO!!! ;D

Just sayin.

HDBG

(FDIC insured disclaimer : as a commercial side passionate fool...I never had fond images of the non-coms...just because they could ASK for money- the rest of us busted hump to "earn" it)

I work with a lot of commercial broadcasters who feel the same way you do. One of their biggest complaints is the lavish equipment non-coms manage to purchase, along with nice studios, while some commercial stations continue to patch and repair because of budget restraints.

On the other hand I also work with non-coms (especially in smaller markets) that have next to nothing when it comes to staff and equipment.

As for grant monies: Remember once those funds are gone, so are the people hired under those grants; at least at some stations. There are a few that try to keep personnel, but at the cost of other staff losing their jobs. IE: Early retirement incentives or elimination of positions, which mysteriously re-appear under a new job title just months later.

 

[aaronread]

I work with a lot of commercial broadcasters who feel the same way you do. One of their biggest complaints is the lavish equipment non-coms manage to purchase, along with nice studios, while some commercial stations continue to patch and repair because of budget restraints.

Oh please. First off, I've worked both sides of the aisle, and I can assure you that plenty of commercial broadcasters have facilities and equipment that's a HELL of a lot nicer than many non-comm's. For example: Clear Channel, for all its flaws, was quite good on that aspect. I've yet to visit a CC studio or transmitter that was a dump...and most of them were filled with nice, well-maintained gear.

Second, if you work for a commercial broadcaster, the core focus is TO MAKE MONEY...just like any FOR-PROFIT business. One way to do that is to increase revenue, but the other is to reduce costs. Having nice facilities costs more money, so it goes against the core focus. This doesn't automatically mean any commercial station is going to be a dump; a smart owner will recognize that good facilities can mean more productive talent which means a better broadcast product which means more ratings and more revenue. (in theory, anyways) Also, at a certain point, keeping old equipment and lousy facilities limping along starts to cost more than just replacing all it with new and good stuff.

Non-profits work on a different model; their core focus is about providing a service or product. Making money is secondary...obviously it's important, but it's not the core focus. This frees non-comm's to focus more on the better gear = better broadcast product equation I mentioned above.

If you're at a commercial radio station and the place is a dump - that's a problem you have with your employer. Not a problem you should have with non-comm's. Yes, in theory a non-comm has access to grant money that helps them pay for those facilities...but commercial radio has access to a lot larger amounts of raw dollars that could be spent for the same thing.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Non-profits work on a different model; their core focus is about providing a service or product. Making money is secondary...obviously it's important, but it's not the core focus.

Making money is secondary? Man are you swallowing that line of propaganda hook-line-and sinker. Executives at a number of non-profits are only interested in the bucks, and I am not talking just about pub-broadcasting either.

Have you ever visited some of these non-profit agencies? Wood paneled meeting rooms, nice leather chairs are just the start.
There have been numerous articles in (some) newspapers and the internet reporting how non-profit executives use fly first class to island resorts with agency funds. A few of them get caught; a lot don't.

As for pub-broadcasting if money is secondary, then why so many fundraising drives on radio and TV? I am sure the "blue hairs" aren't thrilled having Lawrence Welk interrupted by a rerun of a James Taylor concert.

As stated in a previous post, I've been to a number of broadcasting outlets throughout New York and I'm just passing along what some commercial & public station operators have told me. So don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Lee Rust]

It's been my understanding that large grants and donations are more commonly made to non-profits for capital improvements rather than for operating costs. Perhaps the underlying reason is simple human vanity. It's easier to attach a commemorative plaque or a family name to a new studio than it is to a year's worth of paychecks. There's also the matter of depreciation of assets, with which many numerical games can be played.

 

[heydaybegone]

It's easier to attach a commemorative plaque or a family name to a new studio than it is to a year's worth of paychecks

Nuff said.

Just sayin

HDBG

BTW - can't do that on a commer...you just enjoy the "new stuff" cause it makes your job "compatible"

 

[Element9]

It's easier to attach a commemorative plaque or a family name to a new studio than it is to a year's worth of paychecks

Nuff said.

Just sayin

HDBG

BTW - can't do that on a commer...you just enjoy the "new stuff" cause it makes your job "compatible"

Word is Mighty Taco has made an offer to buy the naming rights to the sh*tters at one of Buffalo's three great clusters.

 

[aaronread]

It's been my understanding that large grants and donations are more commonly made to non-profits for capital improvements rather than for operating costs. Perhaps the underlying reason is simple human vanity.

In a way, yes. People with that much money to give do tend to have a certain amount of ego involved. But there's also substantial differences in how a capital campaign is organized to raise funds than a sustaining campaign is. I think there's also some legal differences; that's not my forte, but I don't think payroll costs can depreciate whereas capital equipment does. That can make a substantial difference to your overall accounting.

And it's also just good business sense, too. If I was donating a million bucks, I'd be leery of donating that million to a non-profit whose business model is not productive enough to cover its base operating costs...like payroll. If you can't make payroll, and you can't fix that problem by increasing revenues or decreasing expenses via "normal" means...that usually means that either your company is badly mismanaged or that it just provides a good/service that's not in demand enough to justify the company's existence. Yeah, that's harsh, but that's business. And when you're talking payroll, a large sum...like a million bucks...doesn't go all that far. That's only one year of payroll for your average 20-person company, and that's being generous.

Making money is secondary? Man are you swallowing that line of propaganda hook-line-and sinker. Executives at a number of non-profits are only interested in the bucks, and I am not talking just about pub-broadcasting either.

No, I'm merely pointing out rather basic, axiomatic differences between for-profits and non-profits. And apparently I have to really spell it out or some folks will just pounce on the semantics to fit their argument. :-\ At a for-profit, you can be LEGALLY OBLIGATED to make a decision that results in more profit. Even when it's a bad decision for the health of the company. Non-profits can make bad decisions all the time, but they're rarely LEGALLY OBLIGATED to do so.

Sure a non-profit executive can be obsessed with making money. That's often their job: make money for the institution. But the institution's goal is not to make money. Rather by law, it has to be something else.

 

[listener-in]

At a for-profit, you can be LEGALLY OBLIGATED to make a decision that results in more profit. Even when it's a bad decision for the health of the company. Non-profits can make bad decisions all the time, but they're rarely LEGALLY OBLIGATED to do so.

Before changes to corporate law in the latter part of the 19th century, corporations were chartered by the states to act first and foremost in the public interest, and only then in the interest of the stockholders. The charters were subject to revocation.

Those who are campaigning to put the people in the driver's seat might want to start with corporate law. Oh, I forgot - they don't want to increase the public's power over corporations, in which we have no franchise, only over the government, where we already have the franchise.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

The Buffalo News confirms ("for our out of area callers, readers and posters") board speculation and offers some numbers: $205,000 and $1.3 million annually. As a friend of mine once said, "Man, that's a lot of bread!" State budget cuts know no pity.

 

[SirRoxalot]

It would be interesting to see how they came up with $1.3-million in "support services and operating costs" estimate. Where does that put the total budget for WBFO? And how much do they bring back in?

 

[TheBigA]

As a friend of mine once said, "Man, that's a lot of bread!" State budget cuts know no pity.

I don't think of it as a "lot of bread." The state spends more than $1.5 million a year on toilet paper.

They want the building space back, and as I said last month, there's an overall change of focus at universities to concentrate only on educating students, and not on "extension services" that aid the community, not the student body. The same conversation is going on now in New Jersey. I think the figure I saw was $4 million savings. That's the bottled water budget in Trenton. But they want to get out of the broadcasting business. Or that's what they're saying.