Y2kTheNewOldies
Walk of Fame Participant
Not really shocking though when in some cities like San Francisco and Washington D.C. the Public Radio News/talker is in the top 5 for ratings.
-
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
NPR Ratings at All-Time High with 37.4M Listeners
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
Not really shocking though when in some cities like San Francisco and Washington D.C. the Public Radio News/talker is in the top 5 for ratings.
CTListener
Walk of Fame Participant
And Boston has WGBH (NPR) and WBUR (mostly APM with several local shows) doing very well, too. Any surprising (or not so surprising) figures on how the stations are doing in "red" markets like Dallas, Omaha and Birmingham?
Looking at the 6+ 6a to 12M ratings, the News/Talk NPR Affiliate comes in at
Austin - 7.6 #2 station in market
Dallas/Ft. Worth - 3.6 #13
Houston - 2.5 #18
Even the #13 and #18 is not bad at all, beating about the same number of other stations (and I'm not talking the .01 rated stations either but some of the big boy owned stations).
For those who know Texas, Austin is considered the liberal capital of Texas. Dallas/Fort Worth is likely well under 50% "Texan". I've read 1,000 a day are moving to the DFW metro. Houses in better neighborhoods frequently sell in hours at over asking price. The biggest influx is folks from northern states. The tax advantages, weather and transportation have caused many companies to locate in the DFW area. Houston gets the same but not as much as DFW. Austin is no slouch either with lots of tech jobs. All of this has made the Texas stereotype obsolete. Funny, lots of folks think Texans act like they're a country inside a country. I blame it more on media with "Texas Tough" trucks and pushing things that are traditionally "Texas" as part of most advertising campaigns. Watch TV an hour and you'd be hard pressed not to see a spot that pushes Texas pride or 'independence'. In all the places I've lived, I've never see this.
Please keep in mind Texas is huge. One area is not like the other. It's over 1,000 miles of Interstate 10 between Louisiana and New Mexico. I know it takes about 12 hours to drive from Brownsville to Dallas. My point is because of mere size, it is impossible to create a stereotype that works for the whole state...about like comparing living in New York City with a person living in a western Ne York small town of a few hundred folks.
To compare, I looked at Minneapolis/St. Paul where the News/Talk NPR came in at #5.
Austin - 7.6 #2 station in market
Dallas/Ft. Worth - 3.6 #13
Houston - 2.5 #18
Even the #13 and #18 is not bad at all, beating about the same number of other stations (and I'm not talking the .01 rated stations either but some of the big boy owned stations).
For those who know Texas, Austin is considered the liberal capital of Texas. Dallas/Fort Worth is likely well under 50% "Texan". I've read 1,000 a day are moving to the DFW metro. Houses in better neighborhoods frequently sell in hours at over asking price. The biggest influx is folks from northern states. The tax advantages, weather and transportation have caused many companies to locate in the DFW area. Houston gets the same but not as much as DFW. Austin is no slouch either with lots of tech jobs. All of this has made the Texas stereotype obsolete. Funny, lots of folks think Texans act like they're a country inside a country. I blame it more on media with "Texas Tough" trucks and pushing things that are traditionally "Texas" as part of most advertising campaigns. Watch TV an hour and you'd be hard pressed not to see a spot that pushes Texas pride or 'independence'. In all the places I've lived, I've never see this.
Please keep in mind Texas is huge. One area is not like the other. It's over 1,000 miles of Interstate 10 between Louisiana and New Mexico. I know it takes about 12 hours to drive from Brownsville to Dallas. My point is because of mere size, it is impossible to create a stereotype that works for the whole state...about like comparing living in New York City with a person living in a western Ne York small town of a few hundred folks.
To compare, I looked at Minneapolis/St. Paul where the News/Talk NPR came in at #5.
Y2kTheNewOldies
Walk of Fame Participant
http://ratings.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/rol.exe/arb065
In Sacramento the NPR News/Talk affiliate KXJZ is within the top 10 spots in the radio market.
In Sacramento the NPR News/Talk affiliate KXJZ is within the top 10 spots in the radio market.
Y2kTheNewOldies
Walk of Fame Participant
In the case of San Francisco the NPR affiliate KQED also owns 2 PBS affiliates KQED9 and KQED+ in that case Pledge programming on the weekends will warn audiences that the money donated to KQED inc will go to both PBS affiliation and NPR affiliation costs.
Really? They will "warn audiences?" How will they do that? I've watched lots of pledge drives from co-owned FM-TV groups and I've never seen such a warning.
Y2kTheNewOldies
Walk of Fame Participant
Not warn exactly though but I seen it in the form of "Donate your car to KQED to fund your favorite programming" and the animation will show both PBS and NPR programming in the promo that's what I really meant though.
https://p931z2nb6eo1jytzj2ufrzyoiz-...s/sites/19/2017/02/kqed-annualreport-2016.pdf
See page 23 of the KQED 2016 annual reports made to donors. Note the date states up to September 30th 2016.
Big difference between that and a warning. It's not specified on air which platform it funds. Because as you see, online content gets more money than radio.
As you know, listenership has nothing to do with revenue. The reason to continue public subsidy is because Congress passed a law that required it. If Congress wants to repeal it, they can. But we are a nation of laws, not just the ones we happen to like.
Of course, and I suggested no differently, yet you feel the need to repeat that in nearly every post on this topic.
The budget already proposes to eliminate this wasteful spending and it'll be hard to defend keeping it. It'll be up to the stations to turn that listening audience into enough revenue to sustain the operation or make the necessary cuts.
The budget already proposes to eliminate this wasteful spending and it'll be hard to defend keeping it. It'll be up to the stations to turn that listening audience into enough revenue to sustain the operation or make the necessary cuts.
The problem is that a lot of public stations are owned by state governments. So cutting the federal subsidy means it's more money for the states. And a lot of those governors are Republicans. They don't want to lose their federal subsidy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/u...ernors-say-no-thanks.html?mabReward=A2&recp=1
Keep in mind that this money means local jobs. Local jobs mean votes. Jobs are something every state needs. That's why this is something they actually need.
Some of these states took CPB money and rejected Obamacare money. That's because there's no ideology involved here. It's just money without federal restrictions.
- Status