• 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

NY Times Article on Challenges Facing NPR

B

Barry

The newspaper has a lengthy article providing a number of issues that National Public Radio has been facing. On the positive side, its podcasts show some potential for growth.
I realize there is another NPR post below, but that focused on its perceived political slant, and is no longer open to further comments.

NPR's "Crisis"
 
The problem with this article is that it ignores the larger problem facing all media that depend on sponsorships, advertising, and memberships. They're all facing declining revenue and employee layoffs. It's not a function of politics or perceived bias. In fact, those things can be helpful in defining and even motivating people or companies to donate. It's interesting that the New York Times sees this as a problem, when the Times itself has used this as part of its own marketing, while receiving criticism for the exact same political bias. The only real difference between the Times and NPR is the federal funding. The Times article accepts the Berliner opinion as fact, and then turns it into a crisis. This is a common problem in news reporting today.
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
The problem with this article is that it ignores the larger problem facing all media that depend on sponsorships, advertising, and memberships. They're all facing declining revenue and employee layoffs. It's not a function of politics or perceived bias. In fact, those things can be helpful in defining and even motivating people or companies to donate. It's interesting that the New York Times sees this as a problem, when the Times itself has used this as part of its own marketing, while receiving criticism for the exact same political bias. The only real difference between the Times and NPR is the federal funding. The Times article accepts the Berliner opinion as fact, and then turns it into a crisis. This is a common problem in news reporting today.
Click to expand...
I didn't read it quite that way. What I got from it was that NPR, essentially a type of cooperative among public radio stations, is now trying to compete with them for a shrinking pool of revenue, both from contributions/subscriptions and from underwriting. This exacerbates already existing tensions with member stations.

The other thing I got from the article is the question - "what's your point"? I am assuming the reporters wrote the article in good faith, but I think the Berliner is a sideshow to the real story of a business model that's breaking.
 
Mark Roberts said:
I didn't read it quite that way. What I got from it was that NPR, essentially a type of cooperative among public radio stations, is now trying to compete with them for a shrinking pool of revenue, both from contributions/subscriptions and from underwriting.
Click to expand...

However the rules NPR operates under prevents it from competing with stations. For example, NPR can't do an on-air fundraiser for itself. It can only direct people to become members of their local stations. In fact, if you log on to NPR.org, your browser will identify your local NPR station, and ask you to donate to that station. NPR is managed by its stations, who are have the majority of the seats on its board. The stations chose this current CEO, and they have the power to fire her.

But yes, there is a shrinking pool of revenue. That's a problem, as I said, for all media including newspapers.
 
TheBigA said:
However the rules NPR operates under prevents it from competing with stations.
Click to expand...
Here's what I was referring to...that rule is apparently suspended at the present time:

The nonprofit was planning to create the NPR Network, a service that would allow listeners across the United States to donate directly to NPR. In doing so, the board was wading into an issue that had generated tensions between NPR and its member stations for decades: fund-raising.

For years, NPR’s rules restricted the ways it could ask listeners for money directly. Those solicitations were supposed to be done with participation from local member stations.

Now, the board planned to suspend that rule so that NPR could ask avid public radio listeners to donate directly to the NPR Network.

[...]

After much back and forth, the board held a special session in June [2022] for a formal vote on whether to remove the rule. Ultimately, the board voted to suspend the rule, but agreed to revisit the decision in the coming years, setting up yet another debate.
Click to expand...
The Times article could have been a lot clearer about whether this actually came to fruition. It was the first I had heard of it.

Also, the business about the "North Star" sounds just like every piece of corporate sloganeering I experienced in my corporate career. There's always a big disconnect between the people who come up with those slogans and the people who actually do the work that's supposed to make those slogans a reality.
 
Mark Roberts said:
Here's what I was referring to...that rule is apparently suspended at the present time:
Click to expand...
NPR tried something like this in 2008. The CEO at the time, Vivian Schiller, was forced to resign:


NPR's member stations raise funds through semi-annual pledge drives, but the nonprofit organization's rules forbid "direct-marketing activities," such as soliciting money during programs or through the mail. The prohibition is designed to keep Washington-based NPR from competing with its 800 independently operated member stations for listeners' contributions.
Click to expand...

 
Here's an article that quotes an interview with NPR CEO Katherine Maher, in which she addresses the business challenges:

www.insideradio.com

NPR President/CEO Defends Network, Says She’s Focused On Its Future.

NPR President/CEO Katherine Maher is defending the organization following the controversy stirred up by former Business Editor Uri Berliner’s essay that appeared in The Free Press, in which he accused
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal article:

 
BruceNYC said:
If the Republicans win the White House, it could be the end for NPR. Let's hope for the best. WNYC does very well in the ratings.
Click to expand...

NPR and CPB were created by an act of congress. So without a repeal, they will both continue. The president doesn't have the power of the purse. He doesn't appropriate money. Congress does. Even if congress were to no longer appropriate money to CPB, it would still exist. But what's going on here in the proposed law is telling stations they can't use federal funds to buy NPR programing. They don't say they can't run NPR programming. It just creates a need for alternate funding. Everyone, including NPR, recognizes the funding issue as one of the challenges facing NPR, as the article points out.
 
TheBigA said:
NPR and CPB were created by an act of congress. So without a repeal, they will both continue. The president doesn't have the power of the purse. He doesn't appropriate money. Congress does. Even if congress were to no longer appropriate money to CPB, it would still exist. But what's going on here in the proposed law is telling stations they can't use federal funds to buy NPR programing. They don't say they can't run NPR programming. It just creates a need for alternate funding. Everyone, including NPR, recognizes the funding issue as one of the challenges facing NPR, as the article points out.
Click to expand...
1. Money is fungible, and an authorization from CPB doesn't have to get directed to buying programming (from NPR, APM, BBC, anyone in particular). Money received from CPB could be earmarked for transmitter electricity, or tower maintenance, or studio equipment -- (like this would be the first time that's happened) -- or any of a hundred other operating expenses. As you say, the program acquisition money can come from fund drives, underwriting (whatever revenue's left in that basket) or selling Nina Totenbags. Which would probably be an easier "sell" to on-air listeners that updating the board, for instance.

2. The problem with what you say about the president is we're assuming a normal, rational president. We currently have one of those, and there's a better-than-even chance the electorate, in its collective wisdom, is going to kick him to the curb in favor or the lunatic who aches to become our Dictator-in-Chief. If that happens, *all* bets are off. (The title of his niece Mary's 2020 book was even more prescient than any of us realized at the time: Too Much, and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man.) He wants to be able to do extra-legal embargoes of authorizations from Congress, and I have little doubt he'd go after CPB, NPR, PBS and anyone else he and his nut-fringe supporters have any grievance with.
 
Weiserguy said:
2. The problem with what you say about the president is we're assuming a normal, rational president. We currently have one of those, and there's a better-than-even chance the electorate, in its collective wisdom, is going to kick him to the curb in favor or the lunatic who aches to become our Dictator-in-Chief. If that happens, *all* bets are off. (The title of his niece Mary's 2020 book was even more prescient than any of us realized at the time: Too Much, and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man.) He wants to be able to do extra-legal embargoes of authorizations from Congress, and I have little doubt he'd go after CPB, NPR, PBS and anyone else he and his nut-fringe supporters have any grievance with.
Click to expand...
Points taken, but 1) the present Administration's party is far more organized than that of the "lunatic", which means they will get out the vote, and b) last time Trump was in office CPB funding didn't get cut. NPR revenues, for example, went up (according to Pew), ostensibly from donations -- possibly part of the Trump effect.
 
TheBigA said:
NPR and CPB were created by an act of congress. So without a repeal, they will both continue. The president doesn't have the power of the purse. He doesn't appropriate money. Congress does. Even if congress were to no longer appropriate money to CPB, it would still exist. But what's going on here in the proposed law is telling stations they can't use federal funds to buy NPR programing. They don't say they can't run NPR programming. It just creates a need for alternate funding. Everyone, including NPR, recognizes the funding issue as one of the challenges facing NPR, as the article points out.
Click to expand...
True and also consider that State Legislatures have power of the purse too for the local/statewide NPR and PBS affiliates and all the Governor can do is approve or veto the budget for the statewide NPR and PBS affiliate with CPB Money. The problem here is that whenever a politicians says they are "Defunding NPR or PBS" we have to also look at the state legislature and the political interference at the local Public Media affiliates. We also have to look at which NPR News, PBS Frontline and PBS News Hour segments got the politician riled up to defund a public media affiliate.
 
BruceNYC said:
If the Republicans win the White House, it could be the end for NPR. Let's hope for the best. WNYC does very well in the ratings.
Click to expand...
Didn't happen last time the orange man was in the WH. Why would it this time?

And unless things went completely haywire since 2022, NPR revenue isn't that much of an issue. Although listenership has declined according to Pew, NPR's total revenue went up by 50% from 2015 to 2022 (latest figures available). As we all know, most of NPR's funding isn't from the government. It's from donations and other sources. Local public radio funding in the US also has gone up, gradually, since 2009. Trump can't kill that.
 
There have been a couple of Republican "Defund Our Local Public Stations" examples in the NYC area. When Rudy Giuliani was mayor, WNYC-AM-FM-TV were sold. A private non-profit organization was created to own and operate WNYC 820 AM and 93.9 FM (and later WQXR 105.9). WNYC-TV 31 was sold to Dow Jones, which created a local stocks and business channel. This was before we had CNBC on cable. WNYC-TV was a secondary PBS outlet. WNET 13 is the major PBS station.

And in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie defunded New Jersey Public Television and Radio. WNET 13 took over the chain of four TV stations in New Jersey. A handful of FM stations running NPR programming was taken over by WNYC-FM in North Jersey and WHYY-FM in South Jersey.

Most public radio and television stations would say they get only a small percentage of funding from government, federal or state. If that became zero, they could still operate with some budget cuts. I guess a Republican state governor and legislature could order the state-owned or state university-owned NPR and PBS stations to be sold. But other than the redundant public stations I mentioned in NYC and NJ, I don't know of any place that has totally lost its NPR or PBS stations.
 
wadio said:
What would happen if public stations lost their government funding? Would they be free to accept advertising?
Click to expand...

No. The FCC licenses they have are strictly non-commercial educational. They must be owned by non-profits. Meanwhile, the advertising market is shrinking. That's why Audacy is laying off staff. Even streaming services like Pandora and Spotify have been laying off staff. Accepting advertising means you have to deliver young audiences that advertisers want. So there is no easy solution.
 
Weiserguy said:
1. Money is fungible, and an authorization from CPB doesn't have to get directed to buying programming (from NPR, APM, BBC, anyone in particular). Money received from CPB could be earmarked for transmitter electricity, or tower maintenance, or studio equipment -- (like this would be the first time that's happened) -- or any of a hundred other operating expenses. As you say, the program acquisition money can come from fund drives, underwriting (whatever revenue's left in that basket) or selling Nina Totenbags. Which would probably be an easier "sell" to on-air listeners that updating the board, for instance.

2. The problem with what you say about the president is we're assuming a normal, rational president. We currently have one of those, and there's a better-than-even chance the electorate, in its collective wisdom, is going to kick him to the curb in favor or the lunatic who aches to become our Dictator-in-Chief. If that happens, *all* bets are off. (The title of his niece Mary's 2020 book was even more prescient than any of us realized at the time: Too Much, and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man.) He wants to be able to do extra-legal embargoes of authorizations from Congress, and I have little doubt he'd go after CPB, NPR, PBS and anyone else he and his nut-fringe supporters have any grievance with.
Click to expand...
We have a Supreme Court that had a hearing on whether or not a President is above the law. No matter the vote, I'm sure coup plans are in place.
 
Inside Radio has taken more information from the NY Times article posted above, and focused on its podcasting business:

www.insideradio.com

Report: NPR Has Had $1.7 Million In Podcast Subscription Revenue Since 2022.

Since podcast subscriptions have taken off in recent years, publishers have been reluctant to say much about the money they’re making. Now there’s at least a glimpse. NPR has about
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

NPR is one of the biggest podcasters in the country. The fact that they only made $1.7 million in podcasting is a big issue. No wonder they laid off staff from that division last year. It also says a lot about podcasting. You can have a Top 10 podcast, and still not make much money.
 
TheBigA said:
No. The FCC licenses they have are strictly non-commercial educational. They must be owned by non-profits. Meanwhile, the advertising market is shrinking. That's why Audacy is laying off staff. Even streaming services like Pandora and Spotify have been laying off staff. Accepting advertising means you have to deliver young audiences that advertisers want. So there is no easy solution.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks. But I can't believe that big pharma as well as fruits & veggies, etc. wouldn't flock to the public airwaves to target their audience.
 
Back
Top Bottom