10 ms·
If the numbers Berliner revealed about audience losses are correct, the impact is surely being most felt at the local station level. If fewer people are tuning
by ilamont 3y ago
If the numbers Berliner revealed about audience losses are correct, the impact is surely being most felt at the local station level. If fewer people are tuning in, fundraising will suffer and cuts are inevitable.
For instance, Boston has two NPR stations, WGBH and WBUR, and both are in trouble. This article talks about declining numbers of live listeners and resistance to digital transformation, but never mentions the issues brought up by Berliner.
https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2024/04/11/two-public-radio-stations-two-different-business-models-one-future-of-public-radio-in-boston-hangs-in-the-balance/ https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2024/04/11/two-...
- anonporridge 3y agoKUOW in Seattle seems to be in trouble too. Their sponsors have been getting increasingly cringeworthy. Just last week I heard a long sponsor message from Christian Science. They seem to scraping deeper into the bottom of the barrel and sponsor message seem to be increasing in quantity.
- dhosek 3y agoAre you sure it was from Christian Science and not the Christian Science Monitor which has been a long-time sponsor (and if I recall occasional reporting partner) of NPR.
- anonporridge 3y agoIt was a pretty explicit message along the lines of "come discover how to connect with God with us".
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoNot one is actually going to make you do it though. I’m not sure what the complaint is. You’re mad they paid to sponsor an NPR station?
- anonporridge 3y agoNot mad, disappointed. It just seems embarrassing for them that they're struggling so hard to live up to their value of being "listener supported" that they have to accept sponsors like this to survive.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoI’m still confused. Are Christians not also listeners? It sounds to me like you are disappointed that the liberal bubble isn’t as thick as it could be. That even accepting supporting money from the bad people is compromising. It seems that you are implying that the sponsors of NPR get a say in their programming and reporting? Seems like that is the thing I would be upset about, not that the “wrong people” are supplying the money.
- Dumblydorr 3y agoIt’s NPR, and clearly an atheistic listener there. Are you surprised at this complaint? Christianity is largely anti-science and works against many of the purposes NPR espouses like climate, public health, science and tech, major topics all over NPR. It’s not a stretch to accept this complaint as valid to many left wing rationalist NPR listeners.
- wolverine876 3y agoThe Christian Science Monitor has long had top quality journalism, and sections on religion. What is their relationship with Christian Science (and what is that? is there a unified institution?)?
- slackfan 3y agoThere is, main HQ over in Boston. Both orgs were founded by the same people. I believe the Monitor offices are right next to the main Christian Science complex/are in it.
- lowkey_ 3y agoChristian Science Monitor has been my favorite news source for a long time despite not really being religious. It's so objective and fair even on the most contentious of topics, and really tries to understand the human experience. They were founded by the same woman, Mary Baker Eddy, like a century ago, but today they just have one specifically-cited Christian Science article in each print. It seems they may have the same owner still, but seems like they very much have editorial independence, judging by the things I read.
- ekidd 3y agoChristian Science is a church founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879. They're most famous for believing in faith healing, which is part of a larger collection of beliefs with a "mind/faith over matter" flavor. They have churches throughout New England. In practice, they tend to be pretty mellow in that old-school "New England religious movement" sort of way. The Christian Science Monitor is a well-respected newspaper associated with the church. The few times I've read a paper copy, there was usually one editorial with a religious theme. Their religion did not otherwise color their reporting. I am not the least bit suprised that the Christian Science church might support NPR. Demographically, Christian Science members probably have very high overlap with NPR listeners. And they are, after all, a church which is best known for being associated with a newspaper. I would not be the least bit surprised if they donate to NPR mostly because they want to support public radio.
- colmmacc 3y agoI was a long time listener and donor to KUOW. My intention was to support local radio, hopefully get some more community pieces, and so on ... and that matched the donation drive pitches. When they decided to use their cash to empire build and buy a Jazz station for $8M, I completely gave up and could no longer even stomach listening. I like Jazz, but it hardly needs the help. It seemed like an utter betrayal.
- boringg 3y agoI understand your position. I only want to add that jazz most definitely needs help it is not a financially successful genre for radio. That being said i bet you they bought it on the hopes of getting more revenue and programming and not to save jazz.
- UncleOxidant 3y agoBut Seattle (and Boston) are very blue areas, the issues that Berliner is suggesting wouldn't seem to apply to those areas, they would seem more likely to apply to the hinterlands. The Boston situation probably implies that they just need to combine the two stations into one.
- mlinhares 3y agoMostly because the issues he mentions are not related to the actual reason people are dropping, the reason is _there is a lot of competition for everyone's attention_. Last time I turned on the radio i was a teenager, maybe 20 years ago, with the internet and podcasts there's very little reason to tune in, i have car play in the car and both pocketcasts and spotify, why would I ever tune in? I listen to a lot of NPR podcasts and contribute to WHYY monthly but I don't think i ever tuned into WHYY, i don't even know the frequency they use :P Reality is that all media is pretty much toast unless you're some big name like the NYT and this is really sad because i really love the NPR podcasts, but not sure how they can survive long term without the local radios.
- sanderjd 3y agoNPR is (or was) one of those "big names like the NYT".
- mlinhares 3y agoThe goal wasn’t really to make a profit so no, definitely not like the NYT. And that might be the demise, had they done something like NPR one much sooner with direct subscriptions it might have been easier to make it work. I hope they survive though, hard to find content with the same quality and consistency elsewhere.
- sanderjd 3y agoI don't think making a profit has to do with being a "big name" though. I agree that I really want NPR to thrive!
- tzs 3y agoI definitely listen to KUOW a lot less than I used to. The main reason is that a few years ago they had a lineup on Saturdays that kept me listening most of the day. It included: • A Prairie Home Companion [1] • The Vinyl Cafe [2] • Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! [3] • Says You! [4] • The Swing Years and Beyond [5] Those I'm sure were on Saturday. I know I'm missing 4 other programs from Saturday. I remember the following programs as being on weekends at the time, but can't remember which were Saturday and which were Sunday. • This American Life [6] • The Moth Radio Hour [7] • Snap Judgement [8] • Radiolab [9] • Freakonomics Radio [10] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Prairie_Home_Companion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Prairie_Home_Companion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vinyl_Cafe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vinyl_Cafe [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_Wait..._Don%27t_Tell_Me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_Wait..._Don%27t_Tell_Me! [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Says_You https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Says_You! [5] https://archive.kuow.org/show/swing-years-and-beyond https://archive.kuow.org/show/swing-years-and-beyond [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_American_Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_American_Life [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moth [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Judgment_(radio_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Judgment_(radio_program) [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolab [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics_Radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics_Radio
- mywittyname 3y agoI still listen live on their app when I can, but a lot of their programs are also available in podcast format. I'm sure its hard to compete with so many alternatives to the same content.
- corn13read2 3y agoOr possibly their content is far too weighted ;)
- cyanydeez 3y agoI assume the lost is entirety into the cloud of podcasts. I don't listen to any radio programs anymore and part of that is work from home. But I do listen to NPR programming via podcasts. Their business model seems to not survive the move to work from home. It's got nothing to do with politics. It's entirely the same technologies disrupting all media. We have simply stopped wholesale media consumption for the modern network.
- burningChrome 3y agoAs an aside, I always wondered why conservative radio always dominated liberal radio. Nearly every conservative pundit has a national show and is syndicated far and wide on AM/FM radio stations. Liberal shows you can't find with a search light. Remember Air America? It lasted two years before a host of scandals and a bankruptcy put it into the "where are they now?" bin as it limped along for another 4 years before shuttering. But I digress. Just curious why conservatives still love radio after so many decades and liberals have almost nothing comparable to listen to locally or nationally.
- dhosek 3y agohttps://bigthink.com/guest-thinkers/why-do-conservatives-dominate-talk-radio/ https://bigthink.com/guest-thinkers/why-do-conservatives-dom...
- pesus 3y agoI imagine at least part of it is age and aversion to change/new technology.
- nickff 3y agoIt might just be that conservatives drive more (and that’s how most radio listeners tune in).
- disgruntledphd2 3y agoIf conservatives tend to live in less urban areas, this could definitely be true.
- anon291 3y agoBecause many conservatives have blue collar jobs that have them in their car / at a work site by themselves where they can listen. Whereas progressives seem more likely to listen at a desk, hence the plethora of leftist podcasts.
- 3y ago
- jimbokun 3y agoIt is kind of comical that NPR made racial and gender diversity their main priority…and still have a listener base that’s much whiter than the country as a whole.
- astrange 3y agoNo conflict there if you're used to their New England shows like Car Talk and Wait Wait (* pretending Chicago is New England for the moment). They were always woke, as in constantly making identity jokes about ethnic white people like Jews and Italians.
- jimbokun 3y agoThat’s kind of the opposite of woke.
- astrange 3y agoNo, it's the same thing the article is complaining about now - constantly talking about different identity groups. Those are comedy shows so they present things through comedy. Also, the panelists only ever talk about their own identity group. Non-woke would be talking about other people's.
- vanattab 3y agoThis was a joke right? Of all the shows to use as an example of being woke your going to pick Car Talk? I can't stand NPR News but CarTalk was great.
- astrange 3y agoA progressive public radio show run by two ethnic MIT graduates? Yes.
- samatman 3y agohttps://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/31/44-public-radio/ https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/31/44-public-radio/
- crackercrews 3y agoWAMU had layoffs recently.
- mrcwinn 3y agoIs this really a business model issue? I understood that NPR’s funding primarily comes from corporate sponsors, not listeners or the government. If that’s true, there is less incentive to preserve local affiliates. Consolidation is inevitable, I would imagine.
- tootie 3y agoThat's not exactly true. For one, all the local affiliates have their own budgets, their own expenses, revenues and staff. Up until this year, NPR was specifically prohibited from collecting donations from listeners. If you had gone to npr.org and clicked "donate" it would force you to donate to your local affiliate. Affiliates do not give NPR a cut of their donations. Instead they pay (on a sliding scale I think) for the rights to content produced by NPR. If you look at the sources of revenue for any given affiliate, it will probably be mostly donation from listeners. So taken as a whole, public radio is very much paid for by listeners.
- ed-209 3y agoTheir actual problem would then seem to be this rather complex explanation to a simple question (ie. Where does your money come from / what are your conflicts of interest). Any time I've considered donating, I remember all the "this segment brought to you by ..." and figure they don't need me (and I don't need them).
- tootie 3y agoDonations go straight to the local affiliate who probably did not get any corporate sponsorship and very much need listener support. And besides just saying "corporate sponsor" is not an actual indication of them buying coverage. It doesn't really track that corporations bribed them into being too liberal.
- tootie 3y agoJust to be clear, when it comes to radio audience, the audience is 100% local stations. NPR does not own any radio spectrum. The structure is that local stations have complete editorial control of their programming so long as it adheres to the principles of the NPR mission and in exchange they get access to the network of content produced by NPR and local affiliates. Bigger affiliates like the ones in Boston produce a lot of local content or even sell back to the national network, while smaller ones are mostly running NPR content. They are also all running their own budgets and revenue operations.
- wolverine876 3y agoEvery news outlet and broadcast media outlet are losing audience rapidly. There's no evidence of correlation between NPR's coverage and that outcome. For example, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/conservative-digital-media-traffic/678055/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/conserv...
- coldtea 3y agoEven if "every news outlet and broadcast media outlet losing audience rapidly", the criticism wasn't about NPR losing audience in general, but about NPR losing audience from a particular side predominantly.
- evantbyrne 3y agoIt needs to be repeated that broadcast media is experiencing a bloodbath right now across all areas of the political spectrum. And according to publicly available data, the downwards trend is far more extreme for right-leaning publications[1]. So, pandering to right-leaning audiences is not the winning market strategy at the moment either. It's a lose-lose situation. Can NPR go too woke? Sure, anything is possible. And maybe they have on radio–I wouldn't know. It certainly doesn't seem to be that way from their website though. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/conservative-digital-media-traffic/678055/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/conserv...
- mike_hearn 3y agoThat article needs to be interpreted with caution. Firstly, as they say themselves, their data is misleading because it's comparing with Feb 2020 which was the start of the COVID crisis. Of course news outlets are going to have less traffic in Feb 2024 vs Feb 2020. And although they start by saying there's a bloodbath specifically in right-wing publications, later they admit their dataset yields huge drops also for left-wing publications as well e.g. Slate and The Washington Post are both down ~40%. Secondly, when they do a quick reality check by asking the owners of one of the sites whether the number for his site is true (a 90% drop!), he tells them it's "laughably inaccurate", feedback they then just ignore rather than trying to work out why there's disagreement. And although the authors assert that the drop is worse on the right, they don't really show that with data. They also point out that (assuming they effect they're talking about really does exist) it's probably driven by Facebook and Google manipulating their news feeds to suppress conservative news, not an actual drop in organic demand. So I think the article can't lead to many conclusions about market strategy other than don't trust Facebook or Google, which everyone on the right knew already.