Where now for pubradio's push to engage new listeners?

[Karen Everhart]

As pubradio research/marketer John Sutton pointed out on his blog this weekend, CPB and other funders invested millions in NPR's Day to Day and APM's Weekend America, just two of the public radio shows that have been canceled this year. Neither was able to attract big enough audiences (and the underwriting revenues that come with them) to cover their production costs.

Now CPB is laying the ground work for a brand new public radio format targeting English-speaking Latinos in Los Angeles, and the Station Resource Group is finalizing its recommendations from a year-long project examining the best options to "Grow the Audience."

Meanwhile, pubradio traditionalists in Chicago have blamed Vocalo, an experimental radio/web hybrid service launched by Chicago Public Radio, for diverting needed resources from the city's flagship NPR News service.

The economic downturn is pushing public radio to retreat from shows that were once seen as key to its expansion.

Does public radio have the resources, wherewithal and know-how to attract and engage minorities and younger listeners while still serving its prized core audience? What will it take to succeed, given the lengthening list of recent failures?

Who will provide the leadership?

[Matt Fleeger]

I think shows like Too Beautiful to Live, The sound of Young America and the Takeaway are where it's at. The new show on NHPR (forgetting the name right now) is also pretty interesting. Objectively compare those shows with anything on Vocalo and I think you'll see why most are up in arms. I'm a fan of public radio, but I'm most definitely not a traditionalist.

I also think that big public radio needs to get back with the public and rely less on Corporate support. Trim down show teams, focus more on the internet and social networking sites (rather than trying to create your own from scratch), and hire younger radio people from outside the main organizations (hint hint).

Sure, big pub's got the wherewithall...but will they use it?

[Ron Perrone]

Yup and Amen to getting back to the people. Throughout my 30 year career (I am now 60) as a musician I have maintained active dialogues with much younger artists who are camping outside the borders of the main stream. They distrust all media. On the other hand, if they were the media, public broadcasting would sound like it did when I first started watching and listening. Edgy and truly alternative.

I have heard mash ups reviewed on Public Radio by people who have no idea what the driving philosophic force behind them really is. So instead of shepherding a critical art form, they narrated it with a detached air of "well that's what young folks listen to these days".

I recall, as a teenager, seeing Milton Cross interview the Pink Floyd on Channel 13 (New York) with respect and depth. The next week there was Ginger Baker doing a drum workshop. It was on Public Radio that I was first exposed to Chinese Classical Music and Folk Music and Turkish 11/4 time. There was diversity. These days the edgiest stuff on is "Hearts of Space". Give me a break!

Where is the search for the leading edge of cultural change, new and recycled philosphies moving through the arts communities? That's what Public Radio and TV did in the late 60's and that's what it better do now. Only now the backdrop isn't the Vietnam War, its global environmental collapse, ensuing social chaos, and a looming nightmare of seeing all those apocalyptic movies they were raised on come true.

[Ezra Wall]

So instead of shepherding a critical art form, they narrated it with a detached air of "well that's what young folks listen to these days".

The arts are not the exclusive domain on public radio's superior air, I find. There are a lot of ways in which public radio, in the interest of keeping the tried-and-true (yet, because of age, ever diminishing) audience, has alienated potential listeners. I'm from Mississippi (insert cackles and under-the-breath remarks on various stereotypes here). Public radio is going to sound different here than it does in Idaho, Wisconsin, California or anywhere else. We have found our audience increasing in Mississippi not by telling our audience the elevated, intellectual things we already know and that they ought to. We found our audience increasing when we looked at what information would make their lives better, deeper and richer, and offered it to them in a comfortable, colloquial fashion to which they can relate.

Public broadcasters need to be reminded that they each serve their own public. They need to remember that sounding just like New York and LA is a fine goal, but it's also OK to sound like their own public.

[jeanmari]

Karen--

I think that the kerfluffle about Vocalo is only partly about it's quality. The idea is intriguing, the execution is terrible.

But none of that matters when you look at how Vocalo is being funded now. Originally, it was to stand on its own, not take any WBEZ funds away from WBEZ and, in return, they get excused from participating in pledge drives and working for their keep. Grants were going to fund it.

The grant money was used up rather quickly through a series of poor management decisions. Now funding is being taken from the WBEZ pledge drives to underwrite Vocalo, but CPR refuses to let the WBEZ listeners that their pledges are going to Vocalo. Actually, CPR would rather not let WBEZ listeners know about Vocalo at ALL. They want WBEZ listeners to be kept in the dark, thinking that they aren't pledging enough and that is why WBEZ is doing poorly financially. When Vocalo is actually siphoning off money from WBEZ. I'm thinking that CPR doesn't want the WBEZ listeners to hear Vocalo or inquire too closely as to what is going on. Vocalo is not raising money in any way other than trolling for more grants and selling merchandise, which isn't going to pay for the millions needed to build the new tower required by them when someone at CPR didn't get permission to use the original tower they had planned to BEFORE they started the project. At this point, there is no plan for how Vocalo will become self-supporting and it seems that they will be siphoning money from WBEZ listeners indefinitely.

You can be for innovation and experimentation. You can support creating new ways to reach a diverse audience. And, at the same time, you can be against poor management and mishandling how you are treating donors. Which is what is happening with the Vocalo project.

Frankly, if public radio wanted to create more diversity, they would create paid internships for minorities. When I was teaching Media Studies at an urban university, my students were VERY interested in internships at Chicago Public Radio, but could not afford an unpaid internship. Many of them had to pay part of their own tuition. The fact was that only affluent, and mostly white, people could afford to take an unpaid internship and break into public radio, obtaining the experience and professional depth to craft good media. That would certainly help.

I also agree with Matt's ideas. Focus more on the internet and social networking. Malatia sent quite a signal about his lack of interest in supporting WBEZ when he laid off the web producer for the station a few weeks ago.

[John Sutton]

Under the current spending model, reaching 100,000 weekly listeners with an NPR News formatted station costs between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000 annually. Embedded in those costs are the efficiencies of network programming. Stations get world class content at a fraction of its true cost. Most of those efficiencies don't exist for content aimed at new audiences. It's not unreasonable to expect that it would cost 50% more, under the current way of doing business, to reach 100,000 new listeners whether they were Latino, African-American, or younger. Reaching 100,000 new listeners could cost as much as $3,000,000 per year if the service is structured the way public radio is structured today. That level of expense won't be supported by the marketplace. Such a station would do well to generate $1.5 million in business and listener support. The spending model must change to support new audience growth. Either that or CPB is going to have to redirect current investments to audience growth efforts. Here's an interesting question, will a station in Kansas accept a lower CSG to help grow the audience in LA?

[Julia Barton]

I think the word here should be audience, not just listeners. We have audience coming to the Weekend America website that's never heard the show, but are drawn to our content. We will have audience still coming to the content after the show is gone: broadcast is ephemeral, and measurements of its impact still based on temporal qualities. But web content is permanent, which is something broadcasters are still not getting their heads around when it comes to allocation of resources. (Spoken as the person who tried to hack back some of the many homonyms, misspellings and bizarre punctuation that came along with all the extra content we posted).

Comments on the WA site have been getting more positive, which is great, but now also makes me feel a bit ill as we have been drawing in new people only to pull the plug. I'm curious, however, how the content will live on.

As to all your big questions, I'm thinking very hard about all those as I and other Weekend Americans try to figure out what to do next in a field that's trying to figure out where to go next.

[Rob Paterson]

Is content really it? Is finding new audiences by race and culture really it?

How successful have all these attempts been in the recent past? Why should similar attempts be more successful this time.

A new reality is that all stations will be under massive financial pressure in 2009/10. There will not be the money for the traditional spend and hope approach anyway.

A new reality is that all communities in America will be looking for local leadership in helping each other make life better.

I think that pub media has to be more than broadcasting in these times.

I think that the "answer" is in the relationship that the station has with its community as a whole - offering good content is "nice to have" but being indispensable is surely better?

Pub Media has the trust of the community and the nation. The resources are out there in your community. You have the tools now - both the air and the web.

Helping America get through the new depression is surely a goal that the "leadership" of pub media can agree on?

Pub Radio should not even try to do this on its own. All of the pub media system - TV and the "Public" can come together.

[John Sutton]

Rob -- bringing TV and radio togther would be disasterous in many markets. As a whole, the radio side of public broadcasting is in a better financial position the the TV side. Radio trumps TV in its ability to create local content. Radio fundraising, at least on air, is still built around the core service. Television abandoned that idea years ago. Many good radio operations would be rendered less efficient and effective, not more so, by partnering with their local PTV station.

[Rob Paterson]

John
I am not talking about a merger - I am talking about a network. For instance in St Louis the best journalists in town who used to work for the Paper - now have an online offering that also uses Public Insight Journalism. The Beacon lives in KETC's building. There is a lot of cross fertilization and many real cash savings for both. KETC has thrown a lot of weight behind its community engagement. It is mobilizing the community that will shift the core relationship to a deeper level of commitment. The Beacon participates in this work and has made a major editorial effort to bring the story of what is happening re credit and the economy in St Louis. They do this not as part of KETC but as a true independent partner in a network.

KWMU will be moving to a new site directly adjacent to KETC & the Beacon. Tim Eby and Jack Galmiche are long term friends and colleagues. I have very confidence that they will be able to find ways of helping each other serve St Louis in a more comprehensive way that will bring credit to all.

Conversely joint licence organizations have huge tensions as you so rightly allude to.

A network is not a traditional organization

[Randy Kinkel]

I hear a lot of this type of argument among the Web elite but very few details about what such a concept actually means and how it would work.

I think that pub media has to be more than broadcasting in these times.

what do you mean?

I think that the "answer" is in the relationship that the station has with its community as a whole - offering good content is "nice to have" but being indispensable is surely better?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Pub Media has the trust of the community and the nation. The resources are out there in your community. You have the tools now - both the air and the web.

Helping America get through the new depression is surely a goal that the "leadership" of pub media can agree on?.

how do we do this?

[Rob Paterson]

With everyone soon to be stretched to the limit financially, no one as private citizens or organizations will have any cash available for anything that is not vital to their interests

Can you accept that this state of affairs is coming?

If you can, then we have to answer the question of what is vital. It will be to help people and their communities get through the econolypse. This is what we are trying to do at KETC in St Louis.

If you are not familiar with this approach - here is a link that will explain in some detail what KETC is trying to do

The case study that Amy offers is at the heart of the "What to do" - Here is short video of her talk.

In summary it is to use the Trust of the Station to pull together the resources of a community and to link those in need to them. For instance, those who are at risk of losing their home - do not know who is safe to talk to about help. Many are also ashamed and are frozen. On the other hand - the agencies than can help often have never talked to each other! They also have no voice.

You can use your trust to shift perceptions of those at risk and others who merely blame them. You can pull together the agencies into a force to be reckoned with and you can connect the two.

Things are bad in many cities now. By June 2009, they will be appalling. There is no one that has the trust that Pub media has to act as the convener. This work changes the relationship from nice to vital.

It brings Pub Media back to its core mandate that it has lost - section A.8 of the public broadcasting act:
"(8) public television and radio stations and public telecommunications services constitute valuable local community resources for utilizing electronic media to address national concerns and solve local problems through community programs and outreach programs; "

[Randy Kinkel]

So you're talking about stations being a resource for people to come to and get information and help to solve their personal/financial problems. in a broader sense, to help connect people with problems to other people who can help them with their problems. I can see the value in this, but does this add another level of complexity, staffing, and expense for most stations?