Will Public radio be hurt by HD the way Public TV was hurt by basic cable?

[DG]

1. It's true that HD hasn't caught on, yet. Part of that could be because there hasn't yet been some compelling reason for anyone to make an attempt to create compelling HD programming.

I think the real question is whether or not HD will EVER catch on. That's a very lively debate in and of itself, but for the purposes of this thread, I'll say it never will catch-on among the commercial side and thus, will never "hurt" PubRadio.

2. When you say "Commercial radio", you're basically saying that the current radio mega players like Clear Channel haven't taken a shot at HD radio. I think everyone will agree that the next time Clear Channel has a good and innovative idea for programming, it will be the first.

A "parting shot" maybe. And you get extra points for using "Clear Channel", "good" and "innovative" all in the same sentence! ;D

3. The commercial networks were hurt by cable TV, but PBS was devastated.

Absolutely! PBS was no longer the exclusive distributor of children's educational or even "high-brow" entertainment programming it was best known for. I think being a non-traditional network meant that PBS couldn't/wouldn't adapt to the quickly changing demands of the media marketplace.

And I think overall demand for most of PBS' fare also declined. I find it fascinating that A&E once offered many fine arts programs that were the staple of PBS. And even they have dropped that in favor of more reality-driven programming.

...The cost of audio production have plummeted thanks to new technologies. The same new audio production tools that enable a garage band to make a recording of their song in their garage that is technically better than what came out of professional studios in the 50's and 60's can be used by anyone with talent and imagination to create old-school radio shows...

You are quite delusional if you think all that is needed to produce something like APHC locally is ProTools on a laptop. There's a bit more to it.

True, technology has made production much cheaper, but exactly how many of those "garage productions" are turned into networked-syndicated programs akin to APHC? And cheaper/easier production tools do not a polished producer/director/performer make. How many garage bands actually get their product on air these days? And do they really need radio airplay to become successful?

So now "anyone" can create an old-school radio show- does that mean they should? And can they truly hold a candle to someone the likes of Garrison Keillor? I think risk-aversion is alive and well on both sides of the FM spectrum.

And I'm not saying it hasn't been tried before. What I am saying is that if it were as simple and easy as you suggest, wouldn't there be more stations doing it already? Why not? Obviously there must be more to it than what is being presented here.

...Maybe you need to get your perceptions out of the 50's and 60's and into the 21st century. Just because something had to cost mega-bucks to produce back in the day doesn't mean it still is prohibitively expensive today.

I think it's still quite prohibitively expensive today for most non-comm stations to do, despite the decreased costs for some aspects as you suggest. Your cheap/easy technology example doesn't take into account ALL of the associated costs. Talent still wants to be paid. The stage crew has unions that want their cut. The venue itself wants a piece. Etc.

Again, if it were as simple, cheap and easy as you suggest, why aren't there more such productions done at the local level?

 

[Talk_Dude]

...The cost of audio production have plummeted thanks to new technologies. The same new audio production tools that enable a garage band to make a recording of their song in their garage that is technically better than what came out of professional studios in the 50's and 60's can be used by anyone with talent and imagination to create old-school radio shows...

You are quite delusional if you think all that is needed to produce something like APHC locally is ProTools on a laptop. There's a bit more to it.

True, technology has made production much cheaper, but exactly how many of those "garage productions" are turned into networked-syndicated programs akin to APHC? And cheaper/easier production tools do not a polished producer/director/performer make. How many garage bands actually get their product on air these days? And do they really need radio airplay to become successful?

So now "anyone" can create an old-school radio show- does that mean they should? And can they truly hold a candle to someone the likes of Garrison Keillor? I think risk-aversion is alive and well on both sides of the FM spectrum.

And I'm not saying it hasn't been tried before. What I am saying is that if it were as simple and easy as you suggest, wouldn't there be more stations doing it already? Why not? Obviously there must be more to it than what is being presented here.

You are simply going for a cheap shot if you think that I said or implied that it "only" took ProTools to make a radio variety program.

I said anyone could create a show that was as technically sophisticated as Prairie Home Companion rather economically. Go back to an earlier post of mine where I mentioned doing such a program in a live venue in front of an audience who paid for tickets, with the ticket sales helping to cover the cost of the production. As to "holding a candle" to Keillor, I'm getting tired of pointing out that I'm not talking about a Prairie Home Companion clone.

And as for "risk-aversion", well Duh! That's been one of the central issues I've been talking about. Corporate radio suits seem to be uniformly timid in their thinking. It seems anyone working in radio who actually has any imagination leaves radio in order to get a chance to actually use their imaginations.

It's not as simple and easy as having a DJ play one song after another from a list generated by a computer. But it's not as difficult as putting a man on the moon, either. It's not obvious that there's more to it than has been presented, what's obvious is that the suits running radio today don't have any imagination.

...Maybe you need to get your perceptions out of the 50's and 60's and into the 21st century. Just because something had to cost mega-bucks to produce back in the day doesn't mean it still is prohibitively expensive today.

I think it's still quite prohibitively expensive today for most non-comm stations to do, despite the decreased costs for some aspects as you suggest. Your cheap/easy technology example doesn't take into account ALL of the associated costs. Talent still wants to be paid. The stage crew has unions that want their cut. The venue itself wants a piece. Etc.

Again, if it were as simple, cheap and easy as you suggest, why aren't there more such productions done at the local level?

First, such a program couldn't be produced in any market that's in the stranglehold of unions. Besides, I originally proposed this as something commercial stations could do. It would not be prohibitively expensive for any commercial station that has a typical morning show with skits and banter to put on a live version of their show one evening a month at a local club. The revenue from ticket sales and drinks would cover the venues expenses. Musical talent would work for free or minimum scale because they'd be on the show to plug their concerts and recording sales. The on-air talent working the show could have participating in the live show added to their contracts, or else they could be paid out of a cut of the door.

There are clubs all over the country that are putting on shows with multiple performers anyway, so it's really just an issue of adding some comedy skits and stand-up between the musical acts, taping the entire night, and then editing it down to a "best of" show. The club owners would be fools to turn down the publicity of having their shows promoted on the radio. The on-air talent would be fools to turn down an opportunity to boost their personal fan following, which they can cash in on at contract time. Musical performers would be fools to turn down an opportunity for publicity.

It just takes someone working in radio who has a little imagination and boldness. Of all the reasons why that idea won't work, it that lack of imagination and boldness that dooms it to failure. None of the other reasons mean bupkis.

 

[TheBigA]

It just takes someone working in radio who has a little imagination and boldness. Of all the reasons why that idea won't work, it that lack of imagination and boldness that dooms it to failure. None of the other reasons mean bupkis.

It's not just imagination and boldness of the stations. I've seen stations try to do something like this, and it takes some imagination on the part of the listeners too. Typically, radio is background entertainment. A live performance makes it more foreground. The performers on stage are speaking to the venue audience, not the radio audience. And the performance usually isn't going to be hit songs by hit performers, which is the staple of most radio today. So you're appealing to a more specialized audience, which probably means smaller numbers. Can you translate that into more money? Maybe. Depends on who you pitch. But the stations I've seen who've tried this (and I've seen a few), have found it better to stick to the hits.

The other thing I'm seeing is if we're talking alternate platforms, like HD Radio, the artists have found it's better to do such things on their own web sites. As you say, it's relatively inexpensive and easy to do. And artist usually has those facilities and a dedicated audience. So why share it with a radio station when the artist already has the tools necessary to do the show, plus control and own the content when it's over.

 

[amfmxm]

As Big A mentioned, the HD Radio Alliance announced last week its 2011 radio campaign valued at $110 million on 650+ stations in Top 100 markets reflecting the commitment by the "C Companies" and friends to continue to beat the dead horse that is HD Radio. Yawn. I'll also second his comment that whatever difference there may be between an FM signal and an HD signal appears lost on us within the industry as well as those in the general public expected to buy the radios.

Why? More radio stations? They already have more choices than they can track. Ask your non-radio friends and relatives to name as many stations as they can. See if any of them get past five.

Unrelated, but same thread. Those of you who think there is no underwriting money in public radio are either math-impaired or have been exposed only to lousy sales staffs. The only thing keeping commercial operators from swooping in on NPR-style programming is that the right company hasn't thought of it, yet.

But it's only a matter of time.

 

[TheBigA]

The only thing keeping commercial operators from swooping in on NPR-style programming is that the right company hasn't thought of it, yet.

No I think some have, and some are about to launch. Larry Wilson says he's building a theater in Portland where he'll originate his own Opry-like show soon. Keep an "eye" on what CBS Interactive is doing.

 

[DG]

"...I said anyone could create a show that was as technically sophisticated as Prairie Home Companion rather economically...As to "holding a candle" to Keillor, I'm getting tired of pointing out that I'm not talking about a Prairie Home Companion clone..."

Sorry. You made enough references to it earlier that's why I keyed in on it:

"...Oh, and to those who are totally lacking in imagination, the format of "Prairie Home Companion" is nothing but a throwback to the kind of variety programs that used to be common on radio back in the Golden Age of radio..."

To continue:

...It's not as simple and easy as having a DJ play one song after another from a list generated by a computer. But it's not as difficult as putting a man on the moon, either. It's not obvious that there's more to it than has been presented, what's obvious is that the suits running radio today don't have any imagination..."

I think there IS more to it than you suggest. The show idea you hashed out makes sense for a particular commercial format/audience/market, but may not appeal to the network or even other radio formats. I'd argue that pubradio shows are more compatible across the varied pubradio formats, than their commercial counterparts are (whatever those might be). Listeners play a huge role and attributes like appeal and loyalty are important on the non-comm side.

"...It would not be prohibitively expensive for any commercial station that has a typical morning show with skits and banter to put on a live version of their show one evening a month at a local club..."

What do you consider typical? The "typical morning show" on all of the commercial stations here is syndicated programming via satellite. Somehow I don't see Kidd Kraddick "hopping on down" to the local honky-tonk to do a show.

"...The revenue from ticket sales and drinks would cover the venues expenses. Musical talent would work for free or minimum scale because they'd be on the show to plug their concerts and recording sales. The on-air talent working the show could have participating in the live show added to their contracts, or else they could be paid out of a cut of the door.

There are clubs all over the country that are putting on shows with multiple performers anyway, so it's really just an issue of adding some comedy skits and stand-up between the musical acts, taping the entire night, and then editing it down to a "best of" show. The club owners would be fools to turn down the publicity of having their shows promoted on the radio. The on-air talent would be fools to turn down an opportunity to boost their personal fan following, which they can cash in on at contract time. Musical performers would be fools to turn down an opportunity for publicity..."

I now understand you are NOT describing a local knock-off of APHC which was what I thought your point WAS earlier. What you describe still requires manpower, and lots of stations have given that up in favor of automation. And the few places I've seen what you describe, it's not the station doing it- it's an independent production company.

"...It just takes someone working in radio who has a little imagination and boldness. Of all the reasons why that idea won't work, it that lack of imagination and boldness that dooms it to failure. None of the other reasons mean bupkis.

Perhaps. But I'd make the case that the "imagination and boldness" you describe is more likely to be found on the non-comm side...

 

[TheBigA]

But I'd make the case that the "imagination and boldness" you describe is more likely to be found on the non-comm side...

Well....NPR itself had a shot at APHC before it went national, and they turned it down. So much for imagination and boldness. They've been trying to live that down for 30 years.

But sure, there are loads of indepdendent producers, like Ira Glass, who are smart and know how to build a brand, and they're having success on the non-com side. Some of that involves having an entrepreneurial spirit, which is different from imagination and boldness. That's what's needed more than imagination. A lot of people trying to make a go with Americana and roots music. But it's not moving the meters to the degree you'd think, and the fractionalizing of music is such that perhaps it never will.

 

[aaronread]

Aaron: A bunch of students playing obscure tracks to please themselves at a college hobby station hardly qualifies as "quality content."

Matt, I said PUBLIC radio...not COLLEGE radio. Even you ought to know the difference.

The real issue here is whether "quality" of content has any correlation with commercial or non-commercial status or with for-profit or non-profit incorporation.

Yes and no. A publicly-traded for-profit institution has a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value over the next quarter. That kind of short-term mindset is not conductive to high quality since quality work takes time...that's as true in radio as it is in life. Similarly, the less the company spends on the product, the more money they make in profit...at least in theory, anyways. Coupled with the odd phenomena that whenever a company lays off workers, their stock price always seems to go up (which seems entirely counter-intuitive but I digress) and you have a system in place that all but creates incentives to have a low quality product.

On the other end, you have public radio that survives primarily on listener donations and thus they have no choice but to provide a high-quality product, otherwise listeners won't give money to support it. They might not give anyways, but they definitely won't give if it isn't. To bring it back around, that's a major reason why when a college radio stations tries to do a fundraiser, it often doesn't raise much money.

This fact alone is not the reason for differing quality levels between public radio and commercial radio, of course. But it both defines and reflects a mindset that does explain a lot about why commercial radio's overall quality is in the toilet whereas public radio's overall quality is still quite high.

 

[MattParker]

@Aaron: You mentioned your involvement in both college and public radio.

From all the figures I've seen, public radio does not survive primarily on listener donations, as you claim (nor on CPM funds as many here seem to think). The biggest chunk of revenue comes from corporate sponsors (i.e., ad revenue). No, public radio stations don't have pay off investors. Yet many station governing boards seem to evaluate managers on their ability to generate revenue. Surplus money goes to perks, bonuses, more-better facilities and equipment and even start up costs of for-profit subsidiaries. These stations are awash in black ink and still preempt programming and hold listeners hostage for begathons. Buying stock in a broadcasting company, even with that stock price in free fall, is a much better deal. At least you get to vote for the board of directors and complain at stock holders' meetings. If you really don't like what management is doing, you can sue. Public radio "members" get now say at all and no rights at all (beyond not contributing again).

And yes, public radio stations do lay off workers. Never suits. I'm still not seeing a difference here, except public radio has greater snob appeal.

Overall quality? What's that? How do you define "quality?" How do you even define "overall?"

 

[DG]

"...From all the figures I've seen, public radio does not survive primarily on listener donations, as you claim (nor on CPM funds as many here seem to think). The biggest chunk of revenue comes from corporate sponsors (i.e., ad revenue)...

Not true. Public Radio stations in the larger markets are more likely to enjoy higher underwriting revenue, but not those out in the sticks.

At my pubradio station, the biggest chunk of revenue is NOT from corporate sponsors, but from listener contributions AND our CPB grants. Not all Public Radio stations are alike this way. Some states have huge public broadcasting networks with dozens of stations, and others do not. It's not the same for all stations...

"...Surplus money goes to perks, bonuses, more-better facilities and equipment and even start up costs of for-profit subsidiaries..."

It used to be this way in commercial radio too. Now "surplus money" is sent to the shareholders.

"...At least you get to vote for the board of directors and complain at stock holders' meetings. If you really don't like what management is doing, you can sue. Public radio "members" get now say at all and no rights at all (beyond not contributing again)..."

My experience has been that public radio is THE MOST responsive to listeners because that's where a sizable portion of their money comes from. The commercial station I worked at back in the late '90s didn't give a rat's behind about "listeners". But if an advertiser was upset, heaven and earth would be moved to make them happy. And seriously, you'd have us believe you would sue a GM if, as a listener, you were unhappy with management?

"...And yes, public radio stations do lay off workers. Never suits. I'm still not seeing a difference here, except public radio has greater snob appeal..."

Interesting. I know a public radio station in Odessa, TX that is being sold off. "Suits" and all...

 

[MattParker]

@DG: Which is the tail and which is the dog in public radio? Most of public radio's audience is in major and large markets. They provide most of NPR's revenue - and a fair amount of national programming. They are the rule - not the exception. I'd grant that smaller public radio stations may be more "pure" and truly "listener supported." I've seen the charity reports of CEOs getting incomes in the upper six figures. Brand new, fancy buildings in prime real estate. The best equipment - way beyond actual need. And enough left over to start sideline businesses: Catalog sales, commercial news networks, facility rental, restaurants, nightclubs and concert venues ....

No, I wouldn't sue. But a lot of public radio listeners are the type that would.

And my experience is public radio managements are callously and arrogantly indifferent to listeners' wants, needs and viewpoints - in a way typical of those in the public sector who assume they know best and are doing good works, so how could any reasonable person not appreciate them?

 

[Talk_Dude]

@DG: Which is the tail and which is the dog in public radio? Most of public radio's audience is in major and large markets. They provide most of NPR's revenue - and a fair amount of national programming. They are the rule - not the exception. I'd grant that smaller public radio stations may be more "pure" and truly "listener supported." I've seen the charity reports of CEOs getting incomes in the upper six figures. Brand new, fancy buildings in prime real estate. The best equipment - way beyond actual need. And enough left over to start sideline businesses: Catalog sales, commercial news networks, facility rental, restaurants, nightclubs and concert venues ....

No, I wouldn't sue. But a lot of public radio listeners are the type that would.

And my experience is public radio managements are callously and arrogantly indifferent to listeners' wants, needs and viewpoints - in a way typical of those in the public sector who assume they know best and are doing good works, so how could any reasonable person not appreciate them?

You're describing the people who cater to snobs in all media. Everything you wrote about the elitists who cater to the snobs on public radio (and television) stations can also be said about people who run symphonies, ballet companies, art museums and galleries, and all the other "cultural" stuff for the old money crowd.

They have to live on pedestals to make it easier to look down their noses on us regular folks who prefer regular radio.

 

[aaronread]

From all the figures I've seen, public radio does not survive primarily on listener donations, as you claim (nor on CPM funds as many here seem to think). The biggest chunk of revenue comes from corporate sponsors (i.e., ad revenue).

Well I can't claim to have seen the financials on EVERY public radio station, but there's about a half-dozen where I've seen serious numbers that aren't generally available to the public, and maybe two dozen more where I've seen more generalized numbers at public meetings. I can't recall a single one where corporate sponsorship accounted for more of the overall budget than listener donations does.

Admittedly, sometimes it depends a little on how you define it. WBUR, for example, gets about 40% of its revenue from listeners, 20% from challenge grants, and 30% from corporate underwriting (the remainder is a mishmosh that includes CPB and other federal money, revenue from NPR for their national shows, etc). The catch is the challenge grants; sometimes those are corporations that put the money up for the challenge grant during a fundraiser. Sometimes it's wealthy donors. Sometimes it's foundations. But even when it's a corporation/business, it's not considered underwriting because the company doesn't get the usual underwriting message on air. Granted, their name is often (not always) mentioned a lot during the fundraising pitching, but that's all; no special message that an underwriter usually gets.

And yes, public radio stations do lay off workers. Never suits. I'm still not seeing a difference here, except public radio has greater snob appeal.

I don't see too many suits from commercial radio losing their jobs, either. In fact, it's rather a common refrain on R-I about Farid not losing his. And there were several managers that got axed in the NPR West bloodbath two years ago.

Overall quality? What's that? How do you define "quality?"

Well, you could write a book on that. But for starters, how about money invested in air talent, reporters and facilities? Christ, just the overall AUDIO quality is almost always better on a public radio station than - I daresay - the majority of commercial outlets. Heck, audio quality is actually part of the NPR Charter and part of the NPR Affiliation Agreement. Affiliate stations are required to maintain the highest audio quality/technical facilities that they can.

 

[MattParker]

From all the figures I've seen, public radio does not survive primarily on listener donations, as you claim (nor on CPM funds as many here seem to think). The biggest chunk of revenue comes from corporate sponsors (i.e., ad revenue).

Well I can't claim to have seen the financials on EVERY public radio station, but there's about a half-dozen where I've seen serious numbers that aren't generally available to the public, and maybe two dozen more where I've seen more generalized numbers at public meetings. I can't recall a single one where corporate sponsorship accounted for more of the overall budget than listener donations does.

Admittedly, sometimes it depends a little on how you define it. WBUR, for example, gets about 40% of its revenue from listeners, 20% from challenge grants, and 30% from corporate underwriting (the remainder is a mishmosh that includes CPB and other federal money, revenue from NPR for their national shows, etc). The catch is the challenge grants; sometimes those are corporations that put the money up for the challenge grant during a fundraiser. Sometimes it's wealthy donors. Sometimes it's foundations. But even when it's a corporation/business, it's not considered underwriting because the company doesn't get the usual underwriting message on air. Granted, their name is often (not always) mentioned a lot during the fundraising pitching, but that's all; no special message that an underwriter usually gets.

And yes, public radio stations do lay off workers. Never suits. I'm still not seeing a difference here, except public radio has greater snob appeal.

I don't see too many suits from commercial radio losing their jobs, either. In fact, it's rather a common refrain on R-I about Farid not losing his. And there were several managers that got axed in the NPR West bloodbath two years ago.

Overall quality? What's that? How do you define "quality?"

Well, you could write a book on that. But for starters, how about money invested in air talent, reporters and facilities? Christ, just the overall AUDIO quality is almost always better on a public radio station than - I daresay - the majority of commercial outlets. Heck, audio quality is actually part of the NPR Charter and part of the NPR Affiliation Agreement. Affiliate stations are required to maintain the highest audio quality/technical facilities that they can.

I am not an engineer. I don't see the point of CD quality sound on an FM signal to which most people listen in a car or maybe a clock radio on a nightstand or a counter-top radio in the kitchen. Nobody goes out an spends hundreds of dollars on a sound system to listen to Terry Gross. And new buildings in prime locations have nothing to do with sound quality.

I don't have your inside information on WBUR. I have long considered it an outstanding operation. It is owned by an academic institution (Boston University), which puts it in a somewhat different situation financially than the major market, independent foundation-operated stations (such as WNYC, WHYY, Minnesota Public Radio/Southern California Public Radio). But even some university-owned stations (such as WXPN) have come to rely on "advertisers" (let's call them what they really are and forget the euphemisms like "corporate underwriters") to support lavish executive salaries, new buildings and non-broadcast subsidiaries. WHYY has been widely criticized in the press and by organizations which monitor non-profits for its lavish executive pay. They haven't been sued yet but an active pledge boycott campaign has been underway for the last few years (which the station and the elitists on the board ignore).

@Talk_Dude: Heck, they even look down their noses at people who listen to public radio. Then again, broadcasting is an industry in which the customer (in this context, the listener) is always wrong. As Aaron says, in commercial radio it is advertisers who pay the piper. But public radio purports to be "listener supported." Even at Mayberry Public Radio, where a greater portion of revenue may still come from listeners, it's still about three things: money, money and money. Stations drop classical music or jazz for news-talk because music lovers are tight-fisted at pledge time.

 

[Talk_Dude]

@Talk_Dude: Heck, they even look down their noses at people who listen to public radio. Then again, broadcasting is an industry in which the customer (in this context, the listener) is always wrong. As Aaron says, in commercial radio it is advertisers who pay the piper. But public radio purports to be "listener supported." Even at Mayberry Public Radio, where a greater portion of revenue may still come from listeners, it's still about three things: money, money and money. Stations drop classical music or jazz for news-talk because music lovers are tight-fisted at pledge time.

I can remember when I used to go to Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra Concerts a lot. The programs for each night featured long lists of "patrons" who paid $50, $100, or more for the privilege of getting their names on the program list where it could be seen. The lists were full of Dr. So and So, or the names of prominent lawyers. When you'd go into a doctor's office waiting room, there would often be a collection of placques on the wall from various cultural organizations that the doctor supported. There was a sort of noblesse oblige requirement for those in the upper crust to "pay their dues" by supporting cultural things.

 

[MattParker]

@Talk_Dude: Heck, they even look down their noses at people who listen to public radio. Then again, broadcasting is an industry in which the customer (in this context, the listener) is always wrong. As Aaron says, in commercial radio it is advertisers who pay the piper. But public radio purports to be "listener supported." Even at Mayberry Public Radio, where a greater portion of revenue may still come from listeners, it's still about three things: money, money and money. Stations drop classical music or jazz for news-talk because music lovers are tight-fisted at pledge time.

I can remember when I used to go to Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra Concerts a lot. The programs for each night featured long lists of "patrons" who paid $50, $100, or more for the privilege of getting their names on the program list where it could be seen. The lists were full of Dr. So and So, or the names of prominent lawyers. When you'd go into a doctor's office waiting room, there would often be a collection of placques on the wall from various cultural organizations that the doctor supported. There was a sort of noblesse oblige requirement for those in the upper crust to "pay their dues" by supporting cultural things.

Unfortunately, part of this noblesse oblige is they want the rest of us to pay their dues, too. As in government funding for the arts and for public broadcasting. Not that non-elites are much different. Somehow the tea-baggers don't protest when some rich team owner wants the taxpayers to build him a new stadium. Everybody seems willing for the taxpayers to subsidize what they like but not what anybody else likes.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Unfortunately, part of this noblesse oblige is they want the rest of us to pay their dues, too. As in government funding for the arts and for public broadcasting. Not that non-elites are much different. Somehow the tea-baggers don't protest when some rich team owner wants the taxpayers to build him a new stadium. Everybody seems willing for the taxpayers to subsidize what they like but not what anybody else likes.

In the English language I think what we are talking about is "community". Community is a fuzzy, hard-to-define state of being. For every donor that thrives on having their name displayed before you as a patron of the arts, there may well be ten others who insisted on anonymity and gave without trumpets blaring and flags waving their name.

I recently went to a "community forum" and the speaker for the evening was a young (well, compared to ME he was young) and he laid out a view of economics. It was a small audience so we could all jump in with questions and discussion. He had one chart that spurred a lot of talk. It went back to the 20s and charted the size of government as a percentage of Gross National Product. And people, including the professor to some extent, tried to back up their personal political and economic prejudices by citing certain bumps and dips in the graph.

The professor really wanted to focus on how the world changed circa 1932 and the coming of "The New Deal". I really let the air out of his balloon with this question: "My uncles used to talk about being 'drafted' by local government to work x-number-of-days each year on the country road system. They talked about community jumping in to build school buildings and community centers with volunteer labor. Does your chart showing how much more expensive the public sector has become take into account the off-the-books labor donated or drafted prior to 1932 vs the move to paying people for what they do? Did the cost of civilization really rise that dramatically in 1932 and following, or did we get honest in measuring what we expected or required from people?"

His response was: "I've never heard of such a thing as conscripted labor for public projects."

I would suggest that for the last 30 years we as a country have entered into a time of sorting out how we do community. When do we make it part of organized revenue gathering (taxation) and when do we leave it to the more disorganized mechanism of volunteerism.

I read significant sentiment in this thread that "public broadcasting" should be volunteerism only. I'm not sure what the term is for what should support "fine arts" as discussed here.

Just to stir the thinking a bit: Maybe we could make war a function paid for only by those who are interested in that activity. why should water systems and sewers be forced up us. Let them paid for only by those who are interest in that activity. And what about schools? And hospitals should be paid for only by people who are interested in being sick some day. And kill the Agriculture Department function of government. All that activity should be paid for only by those people who want to eat. Why should the rest of us be forced to pay for that.

Somewhere I just took this conversation over the line from practical to ridiculous. And my point is? Somewhere this discussion of the place of NPR, PBS, and NCE broadcasting in general has wandered over that same dividing line.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Regarding the creation of a radio variety show filled with skits and musical performances done by a commercial station, this clip is from just such a show done in front of a live audience by the WDVE Morning Show cast several years ago. It's a poorly done home video, but it shows that a morning show team could actually do their normal show live in front of an audience. You'll just have to take my word that the music was also performed live instead of being pre-recorded.

 

[aaronread]

I am not an engineer. I don't see the point of CD quality sound on an FM signal to which most people listen in a car or maybe a clock radio on a nightstand or a counter-top radio in the kitchen. Nobody goes out an spends hundreds of dollars on a sound system to listen to Terry Gross. And new buildings in prime locations have nothing to do with sound quality.

The original commitment to sound quality harkens back to before NPR was known as a news organization. Back when classical music, and some jazz or folk, were the mainstays of most public radio stations. And believe me, classical music listeners on the radio take their sound quality VERY seriously. Sometimes freakishly so...but, hey, if they donate to help support it, I'm not gonna complain.

The commitment to sound quality has been maintained in part because of the mindset surrounding public radio. The attitude is always that anything they do, they should be the best at. WBUR is a prime example of that: they're in the #10 market (Boston) but their goal each and every year is to be #1 in fundraising, #1 in underwriting, #1 in (adjusted) cume and TSL, #1 in awards, etc etc etc in the entire NPR network across the country. You should see their "trophy wall". It's 20ft wide and 6ft tall...and they have to take DOWN the old trophies every year because they keep winning so many: RTNDA, NAB, NPR, CPB, AP, Murrow Awards, Peabody Awards, etc etc etc.

(WBUR) is owned by an academic institution (Boston University), which puts it in a somewhat different situation financially than the major market, independent foundation-operated stations (such as WNYC, WHYY, Minnesota Public Radio/Southern California Public Radio). But even some university-owned stations (such as WXPN) have come to rely on "advertisers"

Only the small (and some medium) market stations that are university-owned are getting substantial fiscal support from their parent institutions. Again, WBUR, for example, gets near-zero support of any kind from Boston University: they pay rent on their studios, pay for IT services, pay for janitorial, and get no stipends/budget from BU. WXPN is the same way: they had to buy their building from Penn and pay to renovate it themselves because of the (successful) deal they wanted to cut with the for-profit company "World Cafe Live" (that licenses the branding from WXPN). Last I checked WAMU has to entirely pay its own way with American University as well.

Those stations at colleges that DO get financial support are also rapidly losing it. SUNY Buffalo just announced they're selling WBFO to WNED. Hobart & William Smith recently LMA'd WEOS and WITH to WXXI. Long Island University washed their hands of WLIU (aka WPPB) entirely, and the entire NJN network is in danger of going dark in two weeks as New Jersey slashes the state budget. And that's just the public radio stations...never mind the prototypical "college" stations like KTRU at Rice, and WDCR(AM) at Dartmouth, among many others.

There IS some truth to the idea that a university-owned radio/TV station has a "cushion" should something huge and bad happen, in the sense that there's an endowment to draw on. But drawing off an endowment is very tricky business; just because you have a "$300 million endowment" doesn't mean you've got $300 million dollars sitting around. Depending on your state's fiscal laws and the health of the various funds that make up the endowment (i.e are they underwater?) your endowment may be a LOT smaller than $300 million. Plus, since very few NPR stations have a significant student presence/connection...there will have to be a VERY compelling reason for a college to bail out a radio station in trouble; committing funds that could be used for academics or athletics or other functions deemed more "core mission". In some cases, you might be better off as an independent station, trying to get a loan from a bank.

WHYY has been widely criticized in the press and by organizations which monitor non-profits for its lavish executive pay. They haven't been sued yet but an active pledge boycott campaign has been underway for the last few years (which the station and the elitists on the board ignore).

Meh. WHYY is hardly alone in that camp. People have been bitching about high executive pay at WXXI for years. Ditto at WGBH. CAMERA has had a decade-long campaign against WBUR. Save KUT is talking about petitioning to deny license renewal in two years. Save WCAL sued the crap out of St Olaf College and Minnesota Public Radio for several years. You can't listen to the protesters too much when you're a GM or you'll go crazy trying to make people happy who will never be happy.

 

[MattParker]

I am not an engineer. I don't see the point of CD quality sound on an FM signal to which most people listen in a car or maybe a clock radio on a nightstand or a counter-top radio in the kitchen. Nobody goes out an spends hundreds of dollars on a sound system to listen to Terry Gross. And new buildings in prime locations have nothing to do with sound quality.

The original commitment to sound quality harkens back to before NPR was known as a news organization. Back when classical music, and some jazz or folk, were the mainstays of most public radio stations. And believe me, classical music listeners on the radio take their sound quality VERY seriously. Sometimes freakishly so...but, hey, if they donate to help support it, I'm not gonna complain.

The commitment to sound quality has been maintained in part because of the mindset surrounding public radio. The attitude is always that anything they do, they should be the best at. WBUR is a prime example of that: they're in the #10 market (Boston) but their goal each and every year is to be #1 in fundraising, #1 in underwriting, #1 in (adjusted) cume and TSL, #1 in awards, etc etc etc in the entire NPR network across the country. You should see their "trophy wall". It's 20ft wide and 6ft tall...and they have to take DOWN the old trophies every year because they keep winning so many: RTNDA, NAB, NPR, CPB, AP, Murrow Awards, Peabody Awards, etc etc etc.

(WBUR) is owned by an academic institution (Boston University), which puts it in a somewhat different situation financially than the major market, independent foundation-operated stations (such as WNYC, WHYY, Minnesota Public Radio/Southern California Public Radio). But even some university-owned stations (such as WXPN) have come to rely on "advertisers"

Only the small (and some medium) market stations that are university-owned are getting substantial fiscal support from their parent institutions. Again, WBUR, for example, gets near-zero support of any kind from Boston University: they pay rent on their studios, pay for IT services, pay for janitorial, and get no stipends/budget from BU. WXPN is the same way: they had to buy their building from Penn and pay to renovate it themselves because of the (successful) deal they wanted to cut with the for-profit company "World Cafe Live" (that licenses the branding from WXPN). Last I checked WAMU has to entirely pay its own way with American University as well.

Those stations at colleges that DO get financial support are also rapidly losing it. SUNY Buffalo just announced they're selling WBFO to WNED. Hobart & William Smith recently LMA'd WEOS and WITH to WXXI. Long Island University washed their hands of WLIU (aka WPPB) entirely, and the entire NJN network is in danger of going dark in two weeks as New Jersey slashes the state budget. And that's just the public radio stations...never mind the prototypical "college" stations like KTRU at Rice, and WDCR(AM) at Dartmouth, among many others.

There IS some truth to the idea that a university-owned radio/TV station has a "cushion" should something huge and bad happen, in the sense that there's an endowment to draw on. But drawing off an endowment is very tricky business; just because you have a "$300 million endowment" doesn't mean you've got $300 million dollars sitting around. Depending on your state's fiscal laws and the health of the various funds that make up the endowment (i.e are they underwater?) your endowment may be a LOT smaller than $300 million. Plus, since very few NPR stations have a significant student presence/connection...there will have to be a VERY compelling reason for a college to bail out a radio station in trouble; committing funds that could be used for academics or athletics or other functions deemed more "core mission". In some cases, you might be better off as an independent station, trying to get a loan from a bank.

WHYY has been widely criticized in the press and by organizations which monitor non-profits for its lavish executive pay. They haven't been sued yet but an active pledge boycott campaign has been underway for the last few years (which the station and the elitists on the board ignore).

Meh. WHYY is hardly alone in that camp. People have been bitching about high executive pay at WXXI for years. Ditto at WGBH. CAMERA has had a decade-long campaign against WBUR. Save KUT is talking about petitioning to deny license renewal in two years. Save WCAL sued the crap out of St Olaf College and Minnesota Public Radio for several years. You can't listen to the protesters too much when you're a GM or you'll go crazy trying to make people happy who will never be happy.

@Aaron: Thanks for an informative response. Two comments: (1) It's my understanding "freakish" classical music lovers don't pay for it. Lower pledge rates for classical music is why many stations have dropped classical in favor of news-talk. (2) Your last comment is what I'm talking about when I say station managers are arrogant and indifferent to listeners. Maybe managers will "go crazy" if hey have to receive a more modest salary or actually work for a living. Businesses that listen to their customers last; those that don't listen, don't last. This also applies to public radio. Involved, passionate people gravitate to public radio. They are public radio's core audience. Public radio shouldn't blow off people like that and expect money from them. Station managers who don't raise money, don't keep their jobs.