Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash against so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money from "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad dollars, but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is Charles Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to have an unfair competitive advantage over commercial stations? Just wondering.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
WMPR
- Thread starter zzzz1973
- Start date
C
CentralFLEagle
Guest
Re: NonCom Advertising Grants
> Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash against
> so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money from
> "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad dollars,
> but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is Charles
> Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to have
> an unfair competitive advantage over commercial stations?
> Just wondering.
A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become quite common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are having to seek out more sources of funding, especially with NPR/PBS affiliates who have seen their state and federal support slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial owners realize that such grants support programming they would never air in today's market. And, since the amount is rather small compared with the amount many businesses spend on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus for the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they know that their listeners will generally be higher average income and education than if they simply stuck with regular advertising, so they are still getting their message to that audience.<P ID="signature">______________
Robert Charles Pickering
Lakeland, Florida</P>
> Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash against
> so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money from
> "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad dollars,
> but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is Charles
> Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to have
> an unfair competitive advantage over commercial stations?
> Just wondering.
A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become quite common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are having to seek out more sources of funding, especially with NPR/PBS affiliates who have seen their state and federal support slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial owners realize that such grants support programming they would never air in today's market. And, since the amount is rather small compared with the amount many businesses spend on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus for the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they know that their listeners will generally be higher average income and education than if they simply stuck with regular advertising, so they are still getting their message to that audience.<P ID="signature">______________
Robert Charles Pickering
Lakeland, Florida</P>
Re: NonCom Advertising Grants
> > Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash against
> > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money from
> > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> dollars,
> > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is Charles
> > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to have
>
> > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial stations?
> > Just wondering.
>
> A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become quite
> common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are having
> to seek out more sources of funding, especially with NPR/PBS
> affiliates who have seen their state and federal support
> slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
>
> It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial owners
> realize that such grants support programming they would
> never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
> rather small compared with the amount many businesses spend
> on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus for
> the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they know
> that their listeners will generally be higher average income
> and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> advertising, so they are still getting their message to that
> audience.
Very informed answer, Charles, except that you're talking about a different animal. WMPR goes to car dealerships, furniture stores,retail shops,etc.,and and "sells" advertising under the guise of grants. We're not talking NPR, that's on Mississippi public radio, which I believe you're thinking about. We're talking about a station that competes with commercial stations directly. WMPR ain't classical music, neither.
>
> > Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash against
> > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money from
> > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> dollars,
> > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is Charles
> > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to have
>
> > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial stations?
> > Just wondering.
>
> A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become quite
> common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are having
> to seek out more sources of funding, especially with NPR/PBS
> affiliates who have seen their state and federal support
> slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
>
> It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial owners
> realize that such grants support programming they would
> never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
> rather small compared with the amount many businesses spend
> on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus for
> the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they know
> that their listeners will generally be higher average income
> and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> advertising, so they are still getting their message to that
> audience.
Very informed answer, Charles, except that you're talking about a different animal. WMPR goes to car dealerships, furniture stores,retail shops,etc.,and and "sells" advertising under the guise of grants. We're not talking NPR, that's on Mississippi public radio, which I believe you're thinking about. We're talking about a station that competes with commercial stations directly. WMPR ain't classical music, neither.
>
Re: NonCom Advertising Grants
> >Landecker is exactly correct.... many- but not all- non comms run illegal ads rather than grant sponsorships....there are very specific rules about the conent of the message. I have not bit this ugly snake in a few years so I may be a little off on the FCC rules, but as I recall the message has to be limited to the name of the sponsor, an address, and maybe a slogan...
This problem is only going to get worse as the NPR stations have their funding zereoed out over the next couple of years...
For the record, I have never ever liked non-comms...
Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash against
> > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money from
> > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> dollars,
> > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is Charles
> > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to have
>
> > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial stations?
> > Just wondering.
>
> A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become quite
> common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are having
> to seek out more sources of funding, especially with NPR/PBS
> affiliates who have seen their state and federal support
> slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
>
> It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial owners
> realize that such grants support programming they would
> never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
> rather small compared with the amount many businesses spend
> on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus for
> the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they know
> that their listeners will generally be higher average income
> and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> advertising, so they are still getting their message to that
> audience.
>
> >Landecker is exactly correct.... many- but not all- non comms run illegal ads rather than grant sponsorships....there are very specific rules about the conent of the message. I have not bit this ugly snake in a few years so I may be a little off on the FCC rules, but as I recall the message has to be limited to the name of the sponsor, an address, and maybe a slogan...
This problem is only going to get worse as the NPR stations have their funding zereoed out over the next couple of years...
For the record, I have never ever liked non-comms...
Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash against
> > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money from
> > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> dollars,
> > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is Charles
> > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to have
>
> > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial stations?
> > Just wondering.
>
> A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become quite
> common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are having
> to seek out more sources of funding, especially with NPR/PBS
> affiliates who have seen their state and federal support
> slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
>
> It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial owners
> realize that such grants support programming they would
> never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
> rather small compared with the amount many businesses spend
> on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus for
> the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they know
> that their listeners will generally be higher average income
> and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> advertising, so they are still getting their message to that
> audience.
>
B
buddermilk65
Guest
Re: NonCom Advertising Grants
> > > Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash against
> > > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money
> from
> > > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> > dollars,
> > > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is
> Charles
> > > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to
> have
> >
> > > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial
> stations?
> > > Just wondering.
> >
> > A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become
> quite
> > common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are having
>
> > to seek out more sources of funding, especially with
> NPR/PBS
> > affiliates who have seen their state and federal support
> > slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
> >
> > It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial owners
>
> > realize that such grants support programming they would
> > never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
> > rather small compared with the amount many businesses
> spend
> > on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus
> for
> > the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they know
>
> > that their listeners will generally be higher average
> income
> > and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> > advertising, so they are still getting their message to
> that
> > audience.
>
> Very informed answer, Charles, except that you're talking
> about a different animal. WMPR goes to car dealerships,
> furniture stores,retail shops,etc.,and and "sells"
> advertising under the guise of grants. We're not talking
> NPR, that's on Mississippi public radio, which I believe
> you're thinking about. We're talking about a station that
> competes with commercial stations directly. WMPR ain't
> classical music, neither.
> >
>
You're right, Landecker, and I too have wondered how (and WHY) they're allowed to get away with this. It's as if they think it's OK as long as they tag their commercial spot with "An underwriter of WMPR!".
> > > Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash against
> > > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money
> from
> > > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> > dollars,
> > > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is
> Charles
> > > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to
> have
> >
> > > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial
> stations?
> > > Just wondering.
> >
> > A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become
> quite
> > common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are having
>
> > to seek out more sources of funding, especially with
> NPR/PBS
> > affiliates who have seen their state and federal support
> > slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
> >
> > It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial owners
>
> > realize that such grants support programming they would
> > never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
> > rather small compared with the amount many businesses
> spend
> > on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus
> for
> > the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they know
>
> > that their listeners will generally be higher average
> income
> > and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> > advertising, so they are still getting their message to
> that
> > audience.
>
> Very informed answer, Charles, except that you're talking
> about a different animal. WMPR goes to car dealerships,
> furniture stores,retail shops,etc.,and and "sells"
> advertising under the guise of grants. We're not talking
> NPR, that's on Mississippi public radio, which I believe
> you're thinking about. We're talking about a station that
> competes with commercial stations directly. WMPR ain't
> classical music, neither.
> >
>
You're right, Landecker, and I too have wondered how (and WHY) they're allowed to get away with this. It's as if they think it's OK as long as they tag their commercial spot with "An underwriter of WMPR!".
Re: NonCom Advertising Grants
> > > > Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash
> against
> > > > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money
> > from
> > > > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> > > dollars,
> > > > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is
> > Charles
> > > > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to
> > have
> > >
> > > > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial
> > stations?
> > > > Just wondering.
> > >
> > > A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become
> > quite
> > > common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are
> having
> >
> > > to seek out more sources of funding, especially with
> > NPR/PBS
> > > affiliates who have seen their state and federal support
>
> > > slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
> > >
> > > It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial
> owners
> >
> > > realize that such grants support programming they would
> > > never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
> > > rather small compared with the amount many businesses
> > spend
> > > on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus
>
> > for
> > > the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they
> know
> >
> > > that their listeners will generally be higher average
> > income
> > > and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> > > advertising, so they are still getting their message to
> > that
> > > audience.
> >
> > Very informed answer, Charles, except that you're talking
> > about a different animal. WMPR goes to car dealerships,
> > furniture stores,retail shops,etc.,and and "sells"
> > advertising under the guise of grants. We're not talking
> > NPR, that's on Mississippi public radio, which I believe
> > you're thinking about. We're talking about a station that
> > competes with commercial stations directly. WMPR ain't
> > classical music, neither.
> > >
> >
> You're right, Landecker, and I too have wondered how (and
> WHY) they're allowed to get away with this. It's as if they
> think it's OK as long as they tag their commercial spot with
> "An underwriter of WMPR!".
>
I must interject right now that I'm overwhelmed by having two people actually agree with me on something. Not sure if this ever happened before,so I'm printing this page to show my wife!
> > > > Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash
> against
> > > > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money
> > from
> > > > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> > > dollars,
> > > > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is
> > Charles
> > > > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections to
> > have
> > >
> > > > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial
> > stations?
> > > > Just wondering.
> > >
> > > A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become
> > quite
> > > common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are
> having
> >
> > > to seek out more sources of funding, especially with
> > NPR/PBS
> > > affiliates who have seen their state and federal support
>
> > > slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
> > >
> > > It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial
> owners
> >
> > > realize that such grants support programming they would
> > > never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
> > > rather small compared with the amount many businesses
> > spend
> > > on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more plus
>
> > for
> > > the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they
> know
> >
> > > that their listeners will generally be higher average
> > income
> > > and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> > > advertising, so they are still getting their message to
> > that
> > > audience.
> >
> > Very informed answer, Charles, except that you're talking
> > about a different animal. WMPR goes to car dealerships,
> > furniture stores,retail shops,etc.,and and "sells"
> > advertising under the guise of grants. We're not talking
> > NPR, that's on Mississippi public radio, which I believe
> > you're thinking about. We're talking about a station that
> > competes with commercial stations directly. WMPR ain't
> > classical music, neither.
> > >
> >
> You're right, Landecker, and I too have wondered how (and
> WHY) they're allowed to get away with this. It's as if they
> think it's OK as long as they tag their commercial spot with
> "An underwriter of WMPR!".
>
I must interject right now that I'm overwhelmed by having two people actually agree with me on something. Not sure if this ever happened before,so I'm printing this page to show my wife!
Re: NonCom Advertising Grants
> > > > > Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash
> > against
> > > > > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money
>
> > > from
> > > > > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> > > > dollars,
> > > > > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is
> > > Charles
> > > > > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections
> to
> > > have
> > > >
> > > > > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial
> > > stations?
> > > > > Just wondering.
> > > >
> > > > A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become
>
> > > quite
> > > > common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are
> > having
> > >
> > > > to seek out more sources of funding, especially with
> > > NPR/PBS
> > > > affiliates who have seen their state and federal
> support
> >
> > > > slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
>
> > > >
> > > > It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial
> > owners
> > >
> > > > realize that such grants support programming they
> would
> > > > never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
>
> > > > rather small compared with the amount many businesses
> > > spend
> > > > on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more
> plus
> >
> > > for
> > > > the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they
> > know
> > >
> > > > that their listeners will generally be higher average
> > > income
> > > > and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> > > > advertising, so they are still getting their message
> to
> > > that
> > > > audience.
> > >
> > > Very informed answer, Charles, except that you're
> talking
> > > about a different animal. WMPR goes to car dealerships,
> > > furniture stores,retail shops,etc.,and and "sells"
> > > advertising under the guise of grants. We're not talking
>
> > > NPR, that's on Mississippi public radio, which I believe
>Have you had these same problems from Low Power Fm stations?
I have!!!
> > > you're thinking about. We're talking about a station
> that
> > > competes with commercial stations directly. WMPR ain't
> > > classical music, neither.
> > > >
> > >
> > You're right, Landecker, and I too have wondered how (and
> > WHY) they're allowed to get away with this. It's as if
> they
> > think it's OK as long as they tag their commercial spot
> with
> > "An underwriter of WMPR!".
> >
> I must interject right now that I'm overwhelmed by having
> two people actually agree with me on something. Not sure if
> this ever happened before,so I'm printing this page to show
> my wife!
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Oldtimer1</P>
> > > > > Why has there never been a broadcaster backlash
> > against
> > > > > so-called " non-commercial" stations that make money
>
> > > from
> > > > > "advertising grants"? WMPR clearly competes for ad
> > > > dollars,
> > > > > but everybody seems to look the other way. Why is
> > > Charles
> > > > > Evers allowed to utilize his political connections
> to
> > > have
> > > >
> > > > > an unfair competitive advantage over commercial
> > > stations?
> > > > > Just wondering.
> > > >
> > > > A couple of reasons. "Advertising grants" have become
>
> > > quite
> > > > common among noncommercial broadcasters as they are
> > having
> > >
> > > > to seek out more sources of funding, especially with
> > > NPR/PBS
> > > > affiliates who have seen their state and federal
> support
> >
> > > > slashed in recent years...and expect more of the same.
>
> > > >
> > > > It's actually good for all concerned, as commercial
> > owners
> > >
> > > > realize that such grants support programming they
> would
> > > > never air in today's market. And, since the amount is
>
> > > > rather small compared with the amount many businesses
> > > spend
> > > > on outright advertising, it's acceptable. One more
> plus
> >
> > > for
> > > > the businesses: Especially with NPR affiliates, they
> > know
> > >
> > > > that their listeners will generally be higher average
> > > income
> > > > and education than if they simply stuck with regular
> > > > advertising, so they are still getting their message
> to
> > > that
> > > > audience.
> > >
> > > Very informed answer, Charles, except that you're
> talking
> > > about a different animal. WMPR goes to car dealerships,
> > > furniture stores,retail shops,etc.,and and "sells"
> > > advertising under the guise of grants. We're not talking
>
> > > NPR, that's on Mississippi public radio, which I believe
>Have you had these same problems from Low Power Fm stations?
I have!!!
> > > you're thinking about. We're talking about a station
> that
> > > competes with commercial stations directly. WMPR ain't
> > > classical music, neither.
> > > >
> > >
> > You're right, Landecker, and I too have wondered how (and
> > WHY) they're allowed to get away with this. It's as if
> they
> > think it's OK as long as they tag their commercial spot
> with
> > "An underwriter of WMPR!".
> >
> I must interject right now that I'm overwhelmed by having
> two people actually agree with me on something. Not sure if
> this ever happened before,so I'm printing this page to show
> my wife!
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Oldtimer1</P>
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.