J
JohnnyMorganWXJX
Guest
> > But as I told Jim, below, in those cases the money doesn't
>
> > go to the operation of the station or its management. It
> > goes to the hosts themselves, or whatever entity operates
> > the website.
>
> It would be wrong to assume that FNC does not realize a
> portion of fees paid to O'Reilly for his premium membership.
> There's no reason FNC would let him do it with no return to
> themselves.
It may go to FNC. I don't know for sure. But there is a BIG difference between advertising a separate (premium) website dedicated to a single host, and advertising what is essentially a pledge drive for a commercial radio operation to fund its operations:
"...we've got to reach into every community in this country. We know we can’t achieve this next stage of growth without significant help from you, our loyal listeners."
From the website:
"I want to help Air America Radio get on the air in every community in the nation."
That sure sounds like "give us money so we can fund our operations".
More below.
> > As far as I know, this is the first major, national case
> of
> > a commercial radio operator actively petitioning its
> > listeners, on air, for money to either keep the station
> > afloat or to fund the company and its business ventures
> > itself.
>
> It's not to keep the company or stations afloat. I'm sure
> it is warchest building to expand the network.
Ummm, that is keeping the company and stations afloat. Expanding the business is the surest way to keep your existing business afloat, active, continuing. It is to expand operations--and, by extension, run those operations and the current operations.
> There's no
> difference between asking listeners for individual
> contributions and having another network seek venture
> capital funding from rich fatcats or stock ownership.
Sure there is. Venture capitalists need a reason to invest their good hard-earned (or hard-invested) money. They want assurances that the business will be profitable and that it will be worth their while to invest in it.
I don't know if AAR tried this and failed. I refuse to conjecture on that point.
But there is a damn big difference between going in front of a group of seasoned businessmen, financial planners, and fiscal consulants with well crafted business plans and a promised stake in the future of the company--and going on a website or via email to have your political heartstrings tugged with impending doom if AAR doesn't get some handouts from listeners, and giving them a cheap t-shirt (made in China, perhaps?) in return.
> It's
> really not an important issue, except in the minds of those
> who want to claim it's some grand evidence of AAR "failing."
And those who like to laugh at idiotic radio stunts.
HA-HA!
>
> > go to the operation of the station or its management. It
> > goes to the hosts themselves, or whatever entity operates
> > the website.
>
> It would be wrong to assume that FNC does not realize a
> portion of fees paid to O'Reilly for his premium membership.
> There's no reason FNC would let him do it with no return to
> themselves.
It may go to FNC. I don't know for sure. But there is a BIG difference between advertising a separate (premium) website dedicated to a single host, and advertising what is essentially a pledge drive for a commercial radio operation to fund its operations:
"...we've got to reach into every community in this country. We know we can’t achieve this next stage of growth without significant help from you, our loyal listeners."
From the website:
"I want to help Air America Radio get on the air in every community in the nation."
That sure sounds like "give us money so we can fund our operations".
More below.
> > As far as I know, this is the first major, national case
> of
> > a commercial radio operator actively petitioning its
> > listeners, on air, for money to either keep the station
> > afloat or to fund the company and its business ventures
> > itself.
>
> It's not to keep the company or stations afloat. I'm sure
> it is warchest building to expand the network.
Ummm, that is keeping the company and stations afloat. Expanding the business is the surest way to keep your existing business afloat, active, continuing. It is to expand operations--and, by extension, run those operations and the current operations.
> There's no
> difference between asking listeners for individual
> contributions and having another network seek venture
> capital funding from rich fatcats or stock ownership.
Sure there is. Venture capitalists need a reason to invest their good hard-earned (or hard-invested) money. They want assurances that the business will be profitable and that it will be worth their while to invest in it.
I don't know if AAR tried this and failed. I refuse to conjecture on that point.
But there is a damn big difference between going in front of a group of seasoned businessmen, financial planners, and fiscal consulants with well crafted business plans and a promised stake in the future of the company--and going on a website or via email to have your political heartstrings tugged with impending doom if AAR doesn't get some handouts from listeners, and giving them a cheap t-shirt (made in China, perhaps?) in return.
> It's
> really not an important issue, except in the minds of those
> who want to claim it's some grand evidence of AAR "failing."
And those who like to laugh at idiotic radio stunts.
HA-HA!