PBS ratings decline: why not try advertising?

[Karen Young]

The latest article on PBS ratings plunge, "Surge of channels, people meter chaos depress PBS ratings," like all the other discussions I've seen on this topic, is missing the boat. In my view, the main reason for the PBS ratings plunge is that PBS doesn't make any effort to get new viewers or maintain viewers. There's a reason all other TV stations and networks advertise their programs on billboards and radio. You have to tell people about programming, or remind them of programs they're already familiar with, close to the time of air. If you hear a radio ad about a program that night, if you're interested, you may well tune in. Outreach programs are nice, but you have to advertise to reach any significant numbers of people. I saw a study a few years ago that said only 4 in 10 people were even aware of the existence of public radio. I'm sure the same is true for TV. I notice there's not even a category here for the issue of marketing or expanding the audience. Can it be true that no one thinks about this? Can someone tell me why PBS doesn't advertise?

[Lance Hanish]

PBS by its very nature is powered by those who do not like what they find on traditional, network television. It has created a community of advocates unlike most in American grass routes building. It consists of "like interests", admiring programming somewhat on a higher plain than what Newton Minnow is acclaimed to have said "Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland." But in that famous speech on May 1, 1961, "When television is good, nothing-not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers-nothing is better." It is to this latter position, the society that holds together and builds the core of PBS and promotes it in an old fashioned, soft manner....through wine tasting parties and elite friendship fund raising. It has failed to state its own case of importance for its very being. Alternative is one thing. Great programming is another. Imagined independent newscasting is hoped for. But what it fails so miserably in is in self promotion. It's use of New Media is horrible. It barely uses any power in the Digital platform. There is no existence on the mobile platform. In an era of YouTube, Face Book, Twitter and the like, the very way PBS could promote and not be "like the rest of TV" is through New Media. And if you don't believe monies can be raised; opinions can be changes; momentum to a cause can be forwarded, look at how this New Media propelled President Obama into office.

Advertise on PBS?

That's not the answer. It's how you advertise that will be important to promote PBS.

[Maxey Lynch]

So, what does CPB/NPR do instead of advertizing? They usurp local station programming by stealing their analog (and HD1) channels to air 24/7 news/talk crap (the stuff we can get all over the Internet and on TV -even, on public TV-- every night/all night long) and then, in a brainstorm of pure genius, shove all of its arts content (what everyone REALLY wants to hear over the air/analog/HD1 channels that they can't get anywhere else) into the hybrid digital closet that NO ONE CAN ACCESS WITHOUT SPENDING THE EQUIVALENT, OR MORE LIKELY, MORE THAN THEIR ANNUAL PLEDGE TO THAT LOCAL PUBLIC RADIO STATION. Please, CPB/NPR, please explain to me how this serves underserved audiences? Are you going to force us to listen to non-stop-talk-and-chatter so that we become the "good little conformist citizens" that you want us to be??? The USA congress and the FCC are not mandating a switch to HD radio broadcasting (not even a pure digital broadcast) as it did for TV so, nobody's buying these very expensive radios that only get up to about 25-miles-from-source of an HD signal anyway. So, you ask why public radio doesn't advertise itself? What's there to advertize --that it now sounds like every other news outlet in existence??? Either public radio is it's own worst enemy or the Republicans appointed by Bush are having their last laugh at FFFing with the liberals.

[Mark Jeffries]

Maxey:

Documented proof that arts programming is "what everyone REALLY wants to hear." Please include links.

Anyone in public radio will tell you that consistently, national news and talk programming gets higher ratings and brings in more underwriting and pledge money than arts programming. CONSISTENTLY. In fact, too many of you Musical Monks boast about how you refuse to support public radio, often over taking off one one-hour program, even if the station's your primary station. The stations would love to have competitive programming, but they don't have the money and time that NPR does.

And if you can't tell the difference between NPR News (and PBS, for that matter) and commercial talk radio and cable news, then you are truly clueless.

Oh yes--the post was about *PBS*, not NPR.

[Thomas Broadus]

"It's use of New Media is horrible"

pbs.org does a good job of pushing new media and PBS engage supplies stations with tons of tools and takes the time to share with the stations how to use those tools in social media.
http://www.pbs.org/video is a good example

The issue is on the station level with most smaller-medium sized stations only having 1 person dedicated for all the online/new media projects. The hours to improve the product is simply not there.

[Ezra Wall]

Public broadcasting's core problem in reaching out is the undying, blind dedication to the "core audience." Normally, a broadcaster being loyal to their core is very good, and I'm not suggesting that public broadcasters should throw the tried and true to the wolves in favor of everything new. But I've heard this conversation too many times:
"We can't reach out to that audience because they aren't really our 'type.'"
"Our 'type'? Shouldn't we let them decide whether they find our programming relevant?"
"Well, what I mean is, our 'core' might see us reaching out and think we're pandering. Then they might become upset. So we'll just not reach out."

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but public broadcasters need to, without lowering their standards, make programming which is relevant to real people. I'm sorry to say that the PUBLIC, for the most part, is not the wine-tasting crowd. The PUBLIC consists of some wine-tasters, some beer-tasters, some teetotalers. We need to stop excluding people from public broadcasting's audience just because they are not part of the stereotypical public broadcasting social set.

[Mark Jeffries]

And of course, every time a station tries to make a change the cry of the ultracore is heard: "You put on that awful (insert innovative program here)/took off my favorite program, so I'm not giving you any money." Which means that programming that has long outlived its usefulness stays on only out of fear of offending contributors.

And if I was the King of Public Broadcasting I would never allow stations to call contributors "members" during pledge drives. "Members" means to certain people that because they have a tote bag and a card that gives them restaurant discounts, that they know more about programming than the professionals who run the stations and that all programming changes should be made by contributor referendum, which means nothing gets changed at all. Why can't the more accurate term "subscriber" be used instead?

[Gabriel Melvoin]

i didn't even know that PBS was still around?

[Charles Morgan]

maybe they should put better shows on.