Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Should NPR Stop Promoting Its Own Podcasts and NPR One App On Air? (boingboing.net)
A new "ethics" policy from NPR details new rules to stop promoting NPR One and its podcasts on the air, to ultimately please local station managers who pay the largest share of NPR's bills.
Chris Turpin, V.P. for news programming and operations, writes: As podcasts grow in number and popularity we are talking about them more often in our news programs. We are also fielding more and more questions from news staff and Member stations about our policies for referring to podcasts on air. To that end, we want to establish some common standards, especially for language in back announces. Our hope is to establish basic principles that are easy to understand and allow plenty of flexibility for creativity. These guidelines apply to all podcasts, whether produced by NPR or by other entities. No Call to Action: We won't tell people to actively download a podcast or where to find them. No mentions of npr.org, iTunes, Stitcher, NPR One, etc.
Basically, NPR won't promote "the lauded, loved app that is basically the future of NPR" to listeners who would be most interested in it. How do you feel about NPR's new policy?
Chris Turpin, V.P. for news programming and operations, writes: As podcasts grow in number and popularity we are talking about them more often in our news programs. We are also fielding more and more questions from news staff and Member stations about our policies for referring to podcasts on air. To that end, we want to establish some common standards, especially for language in back announces. Our hope is to establish basic principles that are easy to understand and allow plenty of flexibility for creativity. These guidelines apply to all podcasts, whether produced by NPR or by other entities. No Call to Action: We won't tell people to actively download a podcast or where to find them. No mentions of npr.org, iTunes, Stitcher, NPR One, etc.
Basically, NPR won't promote "the lauded, loved app that is basically the future of NPR" to listeners who would be most interested in it. How do you feel about NPR's new policy?
TV stations, like Blockbuster, are dead and don't know it yet. I think it critically important that NPR promote its blogs whenever possible or risk fading to irrelevance in the future to a more savvy competitor.
Not promoting an app that gives NPR way too much information about viewers listening and usage? Not promoting an app that involves an amazing amount of poking and swiping to get to the content you want? Sounds like a good plan. I prefer listening to NPR more anonymously. I prefer less "curation" (a disturbing term on a bunch of levels) and more choice. We pick which NPR stations to support (and we do support them) and then we listen to their mp3 streams at the bitrates we want to. If we want to listen to podcasts, we have choices and RSS feeds for that, too. NPR One is NOT the solution. Glad to hear less about it.
This might be part of their ethics policy, but that's not where it belongs. As much as people have wined and complained about it being unfair for companies, like Google, to advertise their own products there's nothing unethical about it.
It's a competition issue. NPR gets a significant chunk of its money from radio stations. That's why not all NPR broadcasts are available as podcasts. This whole thing is merely about appeasing those radio stations who are worried about competition from podcasts that are more convenient and available.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
How do I feel about it? When did /. turn into Oprah Fucking Winfrey???
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
they are a technological anachronism. Just as the concept of a Local BBS existed only because of the cost structure of long distance phone calls in the 1980s/1990s, and the technological issue of a lack of intetworking, so the "local affiliate radio station" is essentially an anachronism. of the centralized wireless transmitter based delivery of audio to a mass audience.
Radio towers are incredibly inefficient compared to the internet and essentially are an artefact of the 20th century. There is no reason to have "local stations" in the modern era, other than old people still like to use FM radios. Within 20 years, streaming will be how we receive everything.
NPR has to move with that, or cease to exist. For now, NPR's "old model" will limp on for a while, but in the long run, NPR's podcasts are the only thing that will keep it going.
I know people argue "but your local station is connected to your community". Absolute horse shit. My local station has never had a single program produced by students, even though it is located on a college campus. It bit the bullet and hired some semi local reporting a few years ago, that was a nice effort but its too little too late.
The cost of spewing out 100,000 watts of power into the plain air is unsustainable in an era where people can make podcasts out of their dining room and basement and garage and get a million downloads a month off of hosting services that cost some tiny fraction of what a transmitter would.
Yes, it is sad that some things will be lost. But it is not sad that new voices, decentralized, will rise in the place of what we lost, and make something new and better.
In case we have forgotten, that was the point of NPR in the first place. Not to prop up a dying business model, but to do something new and independent with the new technology available to them at the time.
That costs the stations money for the stream. Radio in the modern age is experiencing technical dificulties . . .
All your database are belong to U.S.
Travel across the US sometime to learn that the demise of radio is a long way away.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I keep my finger hovering above the skip forward button when I start listening to CBC(Canada's sort of NPR) podcasts. They pretty much inevitably promote insider (politically powerful) shows on shows that appeal to a specific and different audience. The promotions are for podcasts that are highly irrelevant to the podcast in question. A science show will promote an arts show, a business show will promote an arts show, a news show will promote an arts show, etc.
To make it worse, the shows they are promoting are often long out of date when the podcast in question is something that is ageless and thus will be listened to potentially for a decade or more.
I have a strong feeling that the CBC is deeply unhappy with podcasts because with listeners choosing what they want to listen to it is in complete opposition with how budgets are being distributed and how by putting certain shows in prime slots it then confirms that those shows are "popular".
I would love to see the stats on podcast listening compared to what the CBC claims is the number of listeners to the live show.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the CBC was 100% driven by its listeners that the lineups, budgets, and shows would be wildly re-prioritized.
Instead the CBC is driven by some mental image of what they should be doing.
I listen to podcasts later. News however doens't work with a podcast. I don't want to listen to news from a week or a month ago.
The radio won't die anytime soon because people are still stuck in their cars when commuting and need something to listen to. It's also free to listen to from home, no need to subscribe to a streaming radio service that's more expensive than an optional yearly pledge. Technological upheavals all over the place but the radio is basically the same as it always was and holding steady. A few children of hipsters use exclusive streaming but who cares.
Were does this quote come from? Even in TFA its a mystery quote hanging out there.
NPR doesn't attract "station surfers" they have a dedicated audience that will tune in to there favorite shows. eg that audience will find the pod casts without the help of mentioning them on air.
The basic problem, as I understand it, is that NPR programs, which NPR member stations pay to carry, are spending too much airtime talking about how the listener can cut their local member station out of the picture and access all NPR program streamed over the internet.. That's a reasonable complaint by the member stations.
The issue is that NPR wants to promote what it sees as The Future of NPR, specifically direct-streamed podcasts.
The simple answer is for NPR to use the same tools as other companies do and run advertisements for their streaming/podcast/apps - paid advertisements.
Simply put, NPR should figure out a pro-rated advertising rate (so many $ per minute), then refund the member stations every time a host promotes the podcasts, streaming service, smartphone app. That way broadcasters aren't paying NPR to educate consumers how to "disintermediate" member stations
Ken
Anecdotally, I listen to NPR in the car most every day and I make a yearly contribution to my local PBS station. I don't listen to a lot of podcasts, but I do sometimes stream This American Life or Serial when I'm driving long distances. In years when feel like I've done a lot of that, I've also made a contribution to the station that does those (WBEZ, I believe).
I don't really know what NPR One is, and I am unlikely to replace my local station with it or any other podcasts. So from my perspective, this change doesn't seem necessary, but without any real data, how much weight can any of our opinions hold?
Actually, if local stations were to bit.ly to NPR's podcasts on their websites, they could promote them on their interstitial ads, and get local credit for doing so. But, NPR broadcast managers aren't the brightest bulbs in the bunch.
This is EXACTLY the same argument used to help ram PPACA (Obamacare) and it's non-participation fees/taxes.
And I'm just curious, what the heck does this mean:
How are those "not actually utilizing NPR" actually "utilizing" NPR?
Ken
The problem is that people listen to the app, rather than the local radio station. The local radio station then sees a decline in donations, and goes off the air. NPR then sees a decline in revenue from local stations purchasing the content they provide, and the service as a whole dies.
That's probably not what would actually happen, but it's the argument being presented.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
That app is hardly the future of NPR, because NPR probably has no future after the demise of radio. While there have been occasionally cases of successfully monetizing podcasts, I think it highly unlikely that NPR would be able to offer the high-quality programming it is known for through solely podcast revenue.
So, when the radio is replaced with streaming (which it probably will), you think NPR is just going to shrivel up and die? You think the millions of people across the nation who listen to NPR on the radio will decide to stream Justin Beiber instead of a Terry Gross interview? Really?
NPR is in a tricky spot now with the radio stations, but they do have a unique product with a sustainable demand and will work it out.
No ones saying to take the podcasts away
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The summary seems a bit misleading. If you read TFA (I know, I know), you'll find:
"Informational, not Promotional: When referring to podcasts, and the people who host, produce, or contribute to them, we will mention the name of the podcast but not in a way that explicitly endorses it."
Still a bit odd, but not as bad as the summary makes it look, I think. No mentioning sites, but it's fine to mention the podcasts themselves.
I admit, I'm left with mixed feelings. I can partly understand it. If it were, say, a book publisher, I can see why they might not want people to promote Amazon, since a lot of book sales still happen through local, indy booksellers, and I'm a fan of local indy booksellers myself. But of course, the podcast sites aren't a big for-profit corporation, so the analogy isn't perfect, but there are similarities.
Another interesting quote:
"No NPR One: For now, NPR One will not be promoted on the air."
(Emphasis mine.) I'm a little reassured by that "for now". That implies that this policy may be subject to change in the future. That maybe things are still a bit in flux, and there's people in the organization who aren't 100% sure about this approach.
So, yeah, I'm not entirely sure what I think about this. If they couldn't mention podcasts at all, I'd be strongly against it, but as it is, I'm kinda neutral. Not a fan, but I can't bring myself to care all that strongly one way or the other.
Trump 2016
Suddenly I feel this aura of safety leave the room... Perhaps it's some musings left by python enthusiast ;^)
Presumably you don't mind reading it, or you wouldn't be here.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
NPR has something like 10 of the top 50 podcasts at the moment, most of which are ad sponsored. I think that they probably doing better than the public radio stations are which buy NPR programming, which still have to resort to those annoying fundraising drives every few months.
That app is hardly the future of NPR, because NPR probably has no future after the demise of radio. While there have been occasionally cases of successfully monetizing podcasts, I think it highly unlikely that NPR would be able to offer the high-quality programming it is known for through solely podcast revenue.
So, when the radio is replaced with streaming (which it probably will), you think NPR is just going to shrivel up and die? You think the millions of people across the nation who listen to NPR on the radio will decide to stream Justin Beiber instead of a Terry Gross interview? Really?
NPR is in a tricky spot now with the radio stations, but they do have a unique product with a sustainable demand and will work it out.
I disagree, they have a unique product sure enough, but having a somewhat captive audience of commuters in their cars who happen to overlap with the set of people that will part with some of their income to donate to a public radio station because of a daily habit (of driving to work) isn't something to dismiss either.
Also programming fees paid by public radio stations make up about 40% of NPR's revenues and 10% from other distribution channels (e.g., cable, satellite, etc). If 1/2 their fees went away, NPR would be likely forced to rely on Corporate sponsorship (currently about 25%) and Grants (only about 15%). It probably won't be the same NPR given that funding would be dominated by corporate sponsorship.
The myth is that NPR is federally funded. Actually, federal funding of NPR comes through the public radio stations. Actually, federal grants are made to public radio stations, and public radio stations pay fees to NPR for their programming using this grant money (along with other local fund-raising sources).
I understand this, as far as if they listeners are getting the feeds from the podcasts, the local stations can't tack on their begging for donations at any point. This could cause them to lose revenue.
Unfortunately, this is short sighted, since you can't expect listeners to not take advantage of something which makes their life better.
I use podcasts so I can listen to my favorite shows at my own pack, not only when they have them on the air. That would be insane to go back to that way of listening.
They should have NPR tack on a quick ad blurb during the show of "and if you liked this show, let your local station know/consider becoming a member...."
The only people this will keep in the dark is their listeners who don't know how to connect an iPod to their computer. Eventually, they will realize their life will be easier on their own schedule. Keeping them in the dark won't stop progress.
I am not sure that it wouldn't go down that way. If I am listening to public radio, it's honestly to listen to a few flagship shows and NPR. I don't need to listen to a local station to hear classical radio these days.
I mean, I sure as heck don't listen to Clear Channel stations 1, 2, and 3 for pop anymore either, so it's not like I am discriminating against public radio. When your big draw is NPR and people can get NPR without you, then NPR might be doing better for it, but the local stations are screwed.
As an American who has business abroad I often end up living in places that most of you never heard before
Yes, I do miss NPR programming - and that of BBC as well ! Thanks God there's podcast that enables me to listen to the programming without having to be there (UK or US)
Hmm... I'm going to out on a limb here and assume that you've never actually listened to NPR...
At least the two NPR stations I listen to air hardly any classical music except maybe on the weekends. It is almost all talk. I listen to podcasts too, but I still donate, and when I donate it is to a local station. If you want to be cheap and not donate, you can very easily do that listening to the radio as well. But if the podcasts are adding value to my experience, shouldn't that make me more likely to donate?
"Establishing a public radio station" (or even a "public newspaper") is not an enumerated power of the federal government under the constitution. Neither NPR nor any other medium or art should be subsidized at the taxpayer expense.
Let them subsist entirely on voluntary donations, then they can do whatever the hell the want.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
My two local NPR stations, KPCC and KCRW, produce original content that may not be aired on NPR One.
And I still do listen during my commute, every day, even when I listen to podcasts also. I'm not always in the car when some of my favorite shows come on (To The Point; Left, Right, and Center; PHC, and Wait, Wait...), so I will occasionally listen at work or while playing something like Minecraft.
I certainly am not going to try and stream a podcast over my phone while driving if I can listen to NPR on FM. So I'm actually listening more.
I can see the fnords!
As an occasional listener to NPR podcasts and local stations, I've noticed there are more sponsors mentioned on the podcasts I listen to. It might be just the ones I listen to, but it does raise an interesting question: Are the podcasts a way to make money more effectively than the radio stations? It's certainly possible to produce podcasts with less overhead, but I imagine there are far fewer listeners. I'm not sure if it really could be enough to offset the local stations' declining income but I'd like to see local stations promoting their own branded and income generating podcasts.
I want public groceries.
I want public furniture.
I want public housing...for everyone.
I want public pornography.
Oh, what the hell, I want government agents to determine our life path from birth until death, and control every step of our lives, and every decision that we make, and provide for all of our needs in the way they best see fit. /sarc
I don't there's a way for you to get more stupid than you already are. You are totally free of any knowledge.
NPR is far from fair. If you believe that it is, then you live in an echo chamber. Sorry to have to call you out on this, but it's true. NPR is very, very left- and progressive- leaning on their programming.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad. Some people enjoy that point of view (like you, obviously). But to claim that it is a fair and balanced source of information is completely incorrect.
Love sees no species.
Actually, I believe the argument was that everyone was paying for the freeloaders in the system. Therefore the freeloaders should no longer get a free ride. If freeloaders were taking advantage of the rest of us, then society would penalize them.
But I'm old enough to remember when "Obamacare" was the conservative Heritage Foundation's "free market" alternative to single payer under Clinton. So perhaps I'm mixing up the arguments for the ACA versus the HF's plan.
NPR used to have a no ads policy. Now they have ads several times an hour, and always one congratulating themselves. It's disgraceful.
Play Command HQ online
I no longer listen to my local Houston NPR station at all, just NPR ONE. I love it that I can skip past stories I'm not interested in. And I also like it that the local station can insert their own stories into the mix (which I can also skip if I want to). It's like having a TiVo for radio.
The problem for local stations is, the app works so well that it just might put the local stations out of business, unless they can find a way to share the revenue. I'm sure that, in the interest of self-preservation, they will.
only because they don't willfully lie in order to help the nut cases pretend that they are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Remember son, just because some people cry to have the opposite side heard does not mean that that opposite side isn't a bunch of made up tripe
The local stations have to pay for the radio infrastructure and NPR fees just for NPR to tell them to listen elsewhere isn't really at good of a deal.
Last year there was some buzz about getting you cell phones to be enabled to play FM radio. Apparently that got shoved under some carpet. Do techies just seem to prefer audio that takes a lot of extra power to listen too?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I certainly am not going to try and stream a podcast over my phone while driving if I can listen to NPR on FM. So I'm actually listening more.
I'm not streaming either, but I listen to NPR programming via podcasts exclusively. I use a combination of BeyondPod and Android Auto and the podcasts are downloaded over wifi automatically when my phone is on the charger. It's far easier than radio and I don't miss anything if I have to turn off my car because it resumes automatically when I restart it.
That's what I was thinking too. To say there's a left and a right side implies that there are two equal sides, not one group based on science and reality and another "side" with tone deaf zealots who eschew facts and reality for internal monologue and self-reinforcing religious beliefs. But that's just my opinion...
It should not be paid for by corporate giants that censor it. That's neither for the nation nor public. It should be paid for by everyone
I wonder if you actually understand where NPR gets its funding. Its a lot more complex than this, and most of it is not corporate (and yes, even less is government).
First off, there's a difference between NPR and the NPR member stations. The stations are all individual entities, associated with NPR only in that they have to pay NPR for their programs. They are essentially customers.
For NPR itself, corporate sponsorships are a bit less than a quarter of their revenue. They get a bit less than half of their money from the member stations. The rest comes from things like satellite fees, grants, endowments, etc. So if there is one group NPR really needs to keep happy, its their member stations. Even in the aggregate, corporate sponsors are a lesser concern.
The member stations themselves do get roughly a fifth of their money from corporate sponsors too. However, they get the largest portion of their budget, more than a third, from their listeners (eg: the infamous "beg week"s) and a good chunk of the rest comes from other public sources like various governments or the CFPB. So the stations are also more beholden to the public than they are to "corporations", and far more than they are to any single corporation.
I listen to a lot of NPR, but I'm not really sure what would be gained by erasing all this and having the government take it over. Right now the whole system is incentivized so that their prime concern is to keep their loyal paying listeners happy. If all the funding came from Governments, their prime concern would have to change to keeping the Government happy.
As someone who lives in a state whose senators are climate deniers, the state government is run by fracking-earthquake deniers, and the school textbook committees get regularly staffed by revisionists and creationists, I really don't think I wanna see what happens when they control NPR.
NPR/PBS leans leftwards ... somewhat.
However if you're claiming 'Far from fair' you're discounting how many conservatives they have on air, entirely conservative based shows like Tucker Carlson, The Editorial board of the WSJ, the 60%-80% conservative panel of the McLaughlin group, Religious programming, local politics, et al. And that's before even talking about the number of conservative guests and think-tanks on the 'Liberal' shows.
So
A) NPR/PBS bends over backwards to make sure conservatives have a voice
B) When's the last time you heard NPR/PBS cut someones a conservatives mic because they were winning the argument?
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Perhaps if my local public stations offered more content than cartalk returns and prairie home companion for hours on end, they wouldn't have people listening to NPR content directly(podcast/app/other station streams). Oh and 14 hours a day of chamber music, yea for some reason one of the stations feels the need to live by the stuffy public radio stereotype.
We had a decent station that offered a mix of modern music and public radio content, but one of the other public radio stations bought it and switched it to music only.
You make it sound like "Podcast" isn't some highly technical thing that never got enough adoption to "just work" in a lot of cases. What Podcasts really need is their own MIME type instead of application/rss+xml - which doesn't tell Windows or Android or iOS that it's specifically a Podcast, just that it's an RSS feed. That way, it could at least point an average user to a correct program to subscribe in.
For those who only want to listen within the silo and aren't tech savvy, I don't really have a better suggestion than what they've already done. If they drop RSS entirely in favor of it, then I might care.
I've been around long enough to remember the nature of the content back in the 1980s and it sure as hell wasn't anything like it is today. Reporting back then used to be actual reporting. Now, they take the approach of cherry-picking one or two sob stories to get you to generalize on a larger issue. Decidedly unethical.
I had not heard about that Emory U thing previously. All I can say is wow. Hopefully they never glimpse the Trump Tower, or any of the Trump properties, or they might go into shock from all the micro-agressions.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
... likely falls under the rubric of "un-American Activities". My word, how can they not realize this? They are covering the election, after all.
Should a bear stop pooping in the woods?
Dark Reflection
Funny, Hillary is now trying to claim that Obamacare was originally called Hillarycare when husband Bill was in the oval office - she wants credit for our current healthcare system "improvements"...
And lately Democrats have a way of taking discarded Republican Ideas, running with them, then seeking protection from the blow-back by declaring it a Republican Plan: they've done this with the loan guarantees to Solyndra, the Fast 7 Furious gun running program, and Obamacare. These were all once Great Democratic accomplishments, then when they blew-up, blame was directed at Republicans that proposed and then discarded the idea before Democrats picked them back up and ran with them.
Solyndra applied for $500M in loan guarantees under Bush admin, which rejected the application because of obvious problems with business plan - Democrats collected campaign donations from Solyndra leaders, approved the loan application, then when Solyndra went tits-up (on schedule, as predicted by government analysts that voted to deny the loan guarantees) it suddenly became a GOP program.
The Fast and Furious gun running program was modeled after a very small scale program attempted under Bush that quickly proved ineffective and was shut down. After Democrats took over the program was revivied and expanded (Democrats thought they could overcome the fatal flaws in the program through a massive increase in the number of guns that crossed the border.) they decided to keep the program their own little secret, refusing to work with the Mexican Government to track the guns once they crossed the border. Once the failed program came to light, Democrat blamed the Republicans for starting it.
Finally, Obamacare was supposedly based on a Republican idea proposed and dismissed by Republicans over a decade ago. Democrats picked it up, brushed it off, added their own ideas to the mix and rammed it through in a panic soon after Edward Kennedy's seat went to a Republican. Shortly after the program was rolled out and started to cause problems, Democrats wasted no time pointing to Romneycare (voted in by the people at the state level, not shoved down their throats before losing control of the Senate) and the Heritage Group's rejected plan as the real problem.
It's fun to watch Democrats do this over and over again, and never get called on it.
Ken
No news source or person is perfectly fair and balanced. That's just not possible, I get that. And NPR does on occasion step into the left-trigger-trap and go all-out lefty progressive commando.
However, I watch and read Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and some more fringy left and right leaning news outlets, cycling through them over weeks or months, because they all kinda suck, I can't take any one source for too long. I have to force myself to. But I think it's important to see how others see the world.
One thing that stands out for U.S. based news outlets: NPR is biased, but is also the least biased. I might even argue it might not have enough bias if it wants more viewers/readers/listeners, since trying to be balanced hurts viewership/readership/listenership. Most humans like clickbait, belief-reaffirming, other-side-sucks environments and trying to show both sides they could be wrong never bodes well for a new outlet; and so NPR will remain at single-digit percentages of the population that use it as a main source of news.
All that being said, if NPR went under, that would be a tragedy for all but the big media companies.
The local stations need more time to yammer about this law firm and that garden center that are valued sponsors. And to pretend that the guy who's his own engineer and producer is a host of All Things Considered.
Yes, they have Charmin and people as well as bears do not like to step into bear poop.
NPR as well as the local stations get less than 5% of their budget from the public (governments). Some stations such as WAMC, which is among the largest NPR stations, do not get a cent of public money. It was offered to them several times, but always with conditions to stop talking about certain issues and topics. WAMC's management thankfully declined...and we are talking a lot of money here. NY even passed a law that prohibits public money to be given to a radio station that does not also operate a TV station. A failed attempt to close down WAMC.
I think NPR is very mainstream middle. Just because some think that even the ultraconservative right is too leftist doesn't shift the spectrum.
I hear conservative view points regularly expressed on NPR...not sure which station you are listening to.
Depending on the station they have two broadcasts, one with classical music and one with talk/news.
Maybe the dial slipped? Anyhow, NPR covers Trump, yes, but due to the nature of Trump's tirades not in a favorable light. They also cover all the other candidates still in the running. What they should do is extend the same to the several third party candidates, many people do not even know they are running because 3rd party candidates do not get invited to big televised debates or have the tax payer foot the bill for their primaries. The parties should organize and pay for their own primaries and rent all polling places. But I guess in this case even the ultraright is in favor of government handouts.
Which tax money is used? Public radio gets next to nothing in public monies.
As in that about 98% of all radio stations are owned and operated by basically two for profit companies? The end of real radio is already here, NPR and affiliates are one of the few holdouts.
It's not that high, but I get your point. Still, the remaining stations aren't going anywhere. Lots of Americans get in their cars for a few hours a day, and Sirius and streaming aren't really as popular as all that because people don't like to pay data rates or subscriptions to hear radio. In a lot of exurbia and rural US, the NPR station is the only real independent alternative, and they are the most listened to stations in those regions. Even in dark red states that would decry NPR's supposed liberal bias.
Plus, local sports teams are all over the radio. In Chicago, one could hear the Sox, Bears, Bulls, Blackhawks and local college teams for free on terrestrial radio. You can even hear Cubs games, though I'm not sure why you'd want to.
Here in Hartford, I listened to a Wolf Pack game just last night. ESPN radio has been playing the entire NCAA tournament on terrestrial radio. That's a lot of programming and there is still great resistance to having it move over to subscription and streaming services.
I definitely agree about the consolidation in the industry though. It's been terrible. But it will be a good long while before local FMs shut down, because they're still great ways to reach people. And of course, NPR is an important national resource.
You are welcome on my lawn.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NPR
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I disagree, they have a unique product sure enough, but having a somewhat captive audience of commuters in their cars who happen to overlap with the set of people that will part with some of their income to donate to a public radio station because of a daily habit (of driving to work) isn't something to dismiss either.
Also programming fees paid by public radio stations make up about 40% of NPR's revenues and 10% from other distribution channels (e.g., cable, satellite, etc). If 1/2 their fees went away, NPR would be likely forced to rely on Corporate sponsorship (currently about 25%) and Grants (only about 15%). It probably won't be the same NPR given that funding would be dominated by corporate sponsorship.
The myth is that NPR is federally funded. Actually, federal funding of NPR comes through the public radio stations. Actually, federal grants are made to public radio stations, and public radio stations pay fees to NPR for their programming using this grant money (along with other local fund-raising sources).
I am aware of NPR's finances because I am a paying contributor to NPR. Maybe that makes me biased... maybe that makes me informed...maybe a little of both...
People will still be commuting and will still want to listen to quality news. Commuters are no more a "captive audience" by NPR than those tuning into Top 40 pop music or AM talk radio. NPR is competing on the free airwaves with their particular brand, and I don't see NPR listeners suddenly turning to the drivel that comes out mainstream media networks (music, news, talk, or otherwise). If in the next decade or so car radios are replaced with streaming devices that users select streams like we do already with AM/FM/XM-Sirius radio and they have NPR options on the dial, then the user experience is largely unchanged. Streaming format would allow NPR to centralize distribution and get funding directly from contributors instead of indirectly through dues/subscriptions from regional stations who divert significant funds to maintaining physical towers. It would definitely be a major change to the organization with it's bumps, but I believe it will be manageable as long as the demand and customer experience stays consistent.