Paul Jacobs chimes in with a timely post about NPR’s travails and what they mean to all of radio.
When Howard Stern announced his departure to Sirius, Fred noted in a blog that his move was akin to Michael Jordan leaving the NBA, and he was right. It didn’t matter whether you liked Stern’s brand of humor – the bottom line was that radio was losing one of its biggest stars and, as a result, there was one less reason for millions of listeners to turn on the device that Marconi gave us. And Howard hasn’t been replaced – nor have many of his listeners who followed him to satellite radio.
I had the same thought yesterday morning as I was reading two radio trades. Radio Ink‘s Eric Rhoads premised that NPR‘s potential demise is a huge opportunity for radio. His thoughts were summarized with this quote:
“But the NPR uproar is a huge opportunity for radio, a giant insurance policy for struggling Talk and music stations at a time when non-political spoken word is set to prevail.”
Apparently there’s a belief out there that should NPR crumble, commercial broadcasters are ready to swoop in to fill the void left by a broadcaster that attracts over 35 million listeners weekly. You could see the logic. But it’s faulty.
Because I then opened up Radio-Info and saw this headline:
Clear Channel is Cutting Production/Creative Staff
Sadly, this has become a fairly common event in commercial radio over the past few years, as operating efficiency has been the watchword; in this case, consolidating production directors to save money.
Ah, money.
When we first started consulting and conducting research in public radio over a decade ago, one of the first things we noticed was the quality of cars that public radio general managers drove (usually a 1990 Honda Accord). It was definitely a different culture than we were used to.
We got to know public radio stations and the audiences who love them, and then later went on to work for NPR. After countless focus groups and other market research endeavors, we came to realize that public radio’s success was no accident. It was the result of doggedly hard work and dedication by radio professionals committed to craft, a sense of fairness, and a never-ending quest for learning and discovery. And among the hundreds of people we got to know in public radio, I’ve yet to meet one who’s in it for the money. They don’t exist.
During the decade we worked for NPR (sadly, we don’t anymore, victims of budget cuts two years ago), we came to appreciate and understand the investment – not just in dollars – that is required to produce quality content. Yes, to do radio on that level, you have to invest in research, people, and analysis.
We once worked for a commercial broadcaster with a Triple A morning show problem. Our research showed that the audience desired a better news product. The company’s group guy suggested we simply steal one of the public radio station’s news people – one of the hosts who did the local news “cut-ins” for NPR’s Morning Edition.
Maybe you can steal a morning show, but you cannot simply go out and buy a credible news image – for $35K. Public radio’s success is no accident. And rather than look at public radio’s impact as siphoning audience away from the local commercial Talk station or All News operation (if there even is one in your town), why wouldn’t Eric see public radio as “additive” to terrestrial radio?
Because it is. When listeners switch between 91.7 and 99.5 and then go to 950, they’re exercising their choice on the AM/FM radio spectrum. When it reaches the point when the Howard Sterns on one hand and the NPRs on the other leave the building, the fans aren’t going to continue to patronize the medium like they traditionally did.
One of Eric’s go-to-guys at his wonderful Convergence conferences, Guy Kawasaki (pictured), summed it up rather well in a recent interview with Mark Ramsey. While Guy enjoys listening to Greg Kihn on Entercom’s KFOX, he is a big fan of public radio, too. Despite the fact that Guy is someone with a total grasp of all the media options available to him, broadcast radio is a prime source of entertainment and information for him:
“I think NPR pretty much understands enchantment. I love shows like Fresh Air, TechNation, Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me. I think Moira Gunn and Terry Gross and Peter Sagal all understand enchantment. They are what they are. They’re very competent, they’re very knowledgeable, they let it rip on the air; and so I love them.”
Public radio and commercial radio are RADIO. While “share” is a zero sum game, “share of mind” and perceived value are different propositions altogether.
We’re not suggesting that when public radio suffers, all of radio feels the pain. But the fact is, commercial radio cannot and will not fill any gap that is left by collateral damage done to public radio and NPR. The efficiencies and ROI aren’t there. Ask the venture capital guys and the bankers. Public radio’s problems aren’t going to help anybody’s EBITDA. It takes people to do great radio. If public radio were to suddenly “go away” tomorrow, their audience wouldn’t gravitate to Rush Radio. They’d subscribe to Sirius and be gone.
There’s room on the radio dial for Sean Hannity, traffic and weather on the 8’s, and All Things Considered. In fact, that’s part of the eroding charm of terrestrial radio. As we have ratcheted our focus to a more 25-54 centric target, axing formats like Smooth Jazz and Classical (yes, there are still plenty of these public radio formats left) because “we can’t make any money on them,” the AM/FM choices become narrower and narrower.
NPR’s angst is not “good for radio.” If they go, their core listeners will go, too.
Eric, you are one of radio’s biggest fans, and we have a great deal of respect for you and Radio Ink. But we think you got this one wrong.
- Is It Quittin’ Time For SiriusXM? - November 26, 2024
- Radio, It Oughta Be A Crime - November 25, 2024
- Baby, Please Don’t Go - November 22, 2024
Abby says
Thank you, Paul. When I read Eric’s blog this week, my eyeballs fell out and rolled accross the floor. Can our industry be so blind to the fact that for pubcasters, listeners matter? We think of our listeners as people, not a comodity or a means to better performance on Wall St. So glad you get it.
Linda Yohn says
Paul, Thank you for taking the time to describe the relationship that public radio hosts/managers have with listeners. It is a communicative chemistry far different from the commercial model. There is much that commercial radio could learn from the listening skills that pubcasters typify. As many of us move in to spring fund raising, we take heart when we read what you took the time to write.
Dick Kernen says
Paul; It is beyond belief that anyone could think?..if that’s the right word…that commercial radio will EVER do the programming
that we’ve come to love on NPR. Rhodes is SO
wrong, I’m stunned that he could arrive at his
take on this. Thanks for responding to him.
DicKernen
Ellen Rocco says
Hey, Paul, from the public side of things, thanks for this article. I’ve re-posted it to a blog on the North Country Public Radio website (www.ncpr.org/all-in). Let’s remember that what matters right now is the work we do as broadcasters.
Again, thanks. Ellen Rocco
LoyaltyMarket says
As someone who works with around 140 public broadcasting stations, I agree 100% with your article.
Having a loyal audience is what any company strives for if they are in the business for the long haul.
Public Broadcasting Stations have gone about gaining this fanbase by delivering a quality product, and engaging when possible in each local community they serve.
Fanning the flames to promote the failure of any service that people rely on, and respect is only going to diminish their own credibility…
Scott Hanley says
Well said, or should I say, well writ. I always liked radio. It’s important for all of us (commercial, public, web, etc) to remember that it’s a big world out there.
Being a “broadcaster” should mean something special – no matter what your license or ownership model says, there is an obligation to entertain, but also to serve. Your listeners are counting on you.
Live like there is a tomorrow.
Michael Marcotte says
Spot on, Mr Jacobs!
You don’t have to wade into the federal funding issue to simply note the success that NPR stations have earned through hard work and attention to audience needs.
It’s a tough road ahead and federal funding is advised for those who look at this not from a commercial standpoint but from a civil society standpoint. (See Knight Commission on Information Needs of Communities.)
May I commend to you my take on why NPR is worth saving? https://www.mikemarcotte.com/2011/03/public-medias-only-hope.html
Tripp Eldredge, dmr says
Your point about “share of mind” frames this discussion well. Thanks for the perspective.
Paul & Fred says
Thanks to all for the wonderful comments – as well as the scores of people who contacted us outside the blog. There’s an incredible amount of passion out there amidst all the gloom & doom. Keep up the fight.
Jim Farley says
Paul, I think agree. In the mid 90’s when I got to Washington, WAMU’s rating (public radio) were higher than WTOP’s (commercial all-news). I volunteered for Pledge Week at WAMU and discovered their listeners are fiercly loyal. It’s a cause for them, not just radio.
Today WTOP’s ratings are higher, but not because we took away public radio listeners. We added different folks. I once thought we could woo them, but no longer think so.
Paul Jacobs says
Jim, really insighful comments about his post. It was our most-read post ever and generated a ton of comments and emails, but none from commercial radio that had this perspective, which is valuable, given the fact that WTOP is one of the leading News stations in America.