AUDIENCE 98 Public Service, Public Support

Home , As It Happens, Bill Siemering, Classical 24, Connecticut Public Radio, Don Imus, Music of Your Life

blank page AUDIENCE 98 Public Service, Public Support

A project of Audience Research Analysis Funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Leslie Peters, Editor

AUDIENCE 98 Core Team David Giovannoni Leslie Peters Jay Youngclaus AudiGraphics® is a registered trademark of Audience Research Analysis.

VALS™ is a registered trademark of SRI International.

AUDIENCE 98® is a registered trademark of David Giovannoni, Audience Research Analysis, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

ii “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

- Albert Einstein

iii blank page Table of Contents

Foreword viii

Acknowledgments ix

1. The Essential Findings of AUDIENCE 98 1 Public Service, Public Support 3 Fundamentals in Brief 4

2. Programming Causes Audience 7 A Community of Characters 9

3. Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 27 Public Radio’s Minority Audiences 29 Public Radio’s Generation X Audience 38 Public Radio’s Older Audience 48 Getting to More with the Concept of Core 52

4. The More Things Change... 57 A Question of Place 59 It Ain’t Net-cessarily So 64 Listening, More or Less 72

5. ...The More They Stay the Same 77 The Importance of Community Radio 79

6. Following the Money 89 Public Service Begets Public Support 91 The Value of Programming 95

7. Audience Volunteers Support 111 Givers 113 Giving 126 The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives 130 Low Anxiety 145 Yield Not to Temptation 150

8. The Buck Stops Here 155 Public Service Economics 157

v Appendix 163 About AUDIENCE 98 165 How AUDIENCE 98 Links Listener Income to Listening 167 How AUDIENCE 98 Links Underwriting Income to Listening 169 What We Learned by Gathering Underwriting Information from Stations 170 Understanding the Giving Model 172

vi Foreword

Sometimes research changes what we think. Other times it changes how we think.

AUDIENCE 98 will change both, but not right away, and not unless we recommit ourselves to the highest standards of public service.

As with AUDIENCE 88, we’ll need five-to-10 years to realize its full impact and value. It takes time to incorporate new thinking into our daily decisions. And it takes time to see the results.

Today, AUDIENCE 98’s findings may seem more conceptual than pragmatic. But so did “core,” “fringe,” “affinity” and “appeal” 10 years ago. Their utility will become obvious as we harness their power. If past is prologue, we’ll internalize them so fully that they’ll seem to have always existed. They’ll feel so natural that we’ll forget where we first read about:

n Public Service, Public Support

n The Value of Programming

n The Stairway to Given

n Personal Importance

n Reliance

n A Sense of Community

n A Community of Interests

n Underwriting Anxiety

n Pledge Drive Resentment

n The Strategy to Transcend

These ideas aren’t new. AUDIENCE 98 has merely renamed old phenomena and relationships as it has clarified our thinking about them.

These ideas aren’t old hat either. They explain the reactions caused by our ac- tions. They show how we can become more effective at what we do.

Most important, these ideas focus our thinking on the public – and on the public service mission of public radio.

vii Our public service mission can be easily forgotten as we increase our reliance on public support. Getting more listeners is easy if that’s all we want to do. Getting more money from listeners and underwriters is easy too – if we don’t care what we’re really selling.

If we forget our history of public service, we depreciate the value of what we now do. And if we ignore the ethics of public service, we undermine the foundation of what we can do.

Our core listeners believe that public radio is the best radio. So do I. That’s the reason I accepted the challenge of AUDIENCE 98.

I count on you to do the same. And I look forward to working with you as together we advance our public service. No single study or person can fulfill public radio’s immense promise alone.

David Giovannoni February 29, 1999

viii Acknowledgments

Many people have worked on AUDIENCE 98. The combined vision and persistence of two, in particular, have made it work:

David Giovannoni, its chief architect and thinker, brought a quarter-century of leadership in audience research to the project.

Rick Madden, CPB’s Vice President for Radio and the system’s prime mover, brought a reluctant Giovannoni.

Major contributions also came from AUDIENCE 98’s Core Team:

Leslie Peters approached the project as a personal, 18-month quest to advance the industry by fitting right-brain data to public radio’s left lobe.

Jay Youngclaus assumed primary responsibility for AUDIENCE 98’s statistical analyses and graphic presentations, and offered many ideas from the refreshing perspective of a public radio newcomer.

Industry professionals also helped. In a unique experiment, AUDIENCE 98 offered non-researchers the chance to set its agenda and present its results.

Dozens of programming and development professionals submitted nearly 100 pro- posals to its competitive Associates Program. Although 1998 was too short to pursue all of their ideas, the front line views of the following individuals kept the study focused on practical, actionable information:

Michael Arnold, Ellen Burch, Jay Clayton, Peter Dominowski, David Freed- man, Kim Grehn, Jeff Hansen, Don Hein, Ingrid Lakey, Steve Martin, Carol Pierson, Israel Smith, Vicki Staudte, and Frank Tavares.

Thanks go to the AUDIENCE 98 Advisory Panel: Tom Thomas and Terry Clifford of the Station Resource Group; CPB Research Director Janice Jones; SoundPrint Media Center President Moira Rankin; and public station programmers Arthur Cohen of WETA and Steve Martin of WAMU.

ix The project has drawn from other deep wells of knowledge and experience. George Bailey and John Sutton have unselfishly offered constant streams of ideas. Their collaboration on the AUDIENCE 98 seminars, with the indefatigable Barbara Appleby and Marcia Alvar, proved that researchers, marketers, programmers and managers can work together to make public radio a stronger, smarter public service.

AUDIENCE 98 has also been assisted along the way by Karen Akerson, Matthew Alshab, Steve Behrens, Anna Maria de Frietas, Deb Giovannoni, Carla Henry, Kent Kroeger, Chris Mandra, Chris Montgomery, Craig Oliver, Roberto Quiroga, John Riggin, Lisa Nackerud Ryan and Kay Tuttle.

x 1.

The Essential Findings of AUDIENCE 98

Distilled and synthesized, two key findings emerge from the thousands of facts generated by AUDIENCE 98. If they seem familiar, it’s because they so precisely reflect our time. Public service begets public support. Public support focuses public service. These two ideas powerfully and inextricably connect the reason public radio exists and the reason public radio is able to exist. They engage the positive feedback of the quid pro quo – of doing well by doing good.

Ten years ago, AUDIENCE 88 developed the “programming causes audience” fundamentals of public service – the focus of our activities back then. Today, as listener-sensitive income surpasses all other revenues combined, AUDIENCE 98 focuses – necessarily – on the “programming causes support” fundamentals of public service. Like the programming basics of the last decade, these financial essentials will have currency for years to come. This first chapter offers a summary.

AUDIENCE 98 1 The Essential Findings of AUDIENCE 98 The Essential Findings of AUDIENCE 98 2 AUDIENCE 98 Public Service, Public Support

Twenty years ago, pioneer researcher Tom That’s put enormous pressure on public radio Church observed: “Nobody can buy a public development professionals. They’ve re- radio.” He was right. His brilliantly pithy point – sponded heroically, in the best way they know that public radio is subject to the same com- how, with a barrage of professional training, petitive rules as commercial radio – is as true improved data management and creative now at it was then. fundraising techniques, fueled by CPB’s Radio Future Fund. Today, however, the rules are getting tougher. Commercial station mega-groups are setting up But the most powerful force affecting giving is multiple services in our markets. New technolo- not in their control. Programming not only gies are opening up new information and en- causes audience, it also causes audience tertainment possibilities. Audience targets for support. Fundraising is always about program- all media have become narrower. Competition ming. That’s the indisputable fact of 15 years of for people’s time and attention has become as research, reconfirmed by AUDIENCE 98. fierce as the stakes are high. If more than half of our audience still sits out This year Arbitron begins offering information pledge drives, ignores telemarketing and tosses about listeners’ education in its basic subscriber away mail appeals, it’s mostly because our pro- report, putting our upscale, college-educated gramming service is not yet the best it can audience in easy aim. be. That leaves us wide open to competition. The new rules make it much easier for us to These developments point in one direction. Lis- lose. teners soon may be able to buy a public radio – or something very much like it – from For the moment, we have an edge on commer- someone other than us. cial interests, with a reputation, a history and the loyalty of millions of listeners. But we can’t In fact, it’s inevitable. The only question is when. afford to take any of that for granted. Our response lies in our two strengths: the public service we provide, and the public support Our other chief asset is information. Right now, that results. we understand more than any competitor about what draws listeners to our service, and inspires Back when Church was being a wit, public ra- them to give. We can use that knowledge to dio could count on comfortable amounts of gov- strengthen our hand – station-by-station, pro- ernmental and institutional support. Network gram-by-program – and fortify the public ser- programming was cheap. People were debat- vice that primes public support. In fact, our fu- ing whether having a sizable audience was a ture depends on it. worthwhile goal. We could afford that debate: listener support was a negligible entry in the led- Information alone can’t assure our success, gers of most public radio stations. but information applied is an auspicious start. In these next pages, AUDIENCE 98 helps Today listener support is our largest single show the way. revenue source. And our reliance on those contributions is growing. Leslie Peters March 25, 1999

AUDIENCE 98 3 The Essential Findings of AUDIENCE 98 Public Service, Public Support Fundamentals in Brief

Public service begets public support. Public service causes giving; fundraising efforts trigger it. n Listeners send money to public radio when they rely upon its service and consider it n The most powerful way to increase public important in their lives. support is to improve public service. n They are also more inclined to send money n Giving is the product of two programming when they believe their support is essential factors (the value listeners place on the pro- and government and institutional funding is gramming and the amount of listening minimal. done to it) and one development factor (the efficiency with which fundraising efforts turn n Listeners who have more money can give this into financial support). more money; however, their reliance on public radio and its importance in their lives n Effective fundraising activities can raise giv- exert greater influence over the size of their ing and gift amounts above public service gifts. predictions. n Public service and public support are linked n Fundraising practices can lower giving and so tightly that listener support can be used gift amounts below public service predictions as a proxy for the public service that causes when they attenuate or otherwise interfere it. with public radio’s service to listeners: n Public support, like public service, is the n The vast majority of listeners say that pledge product of two factors: the value listeners drives are becoming more prevalent and place on the programming, and the amount harder to listen to. Half say they tune out or of listening done to the programming. listen less during drives. n Morning Edition and All Things Considered n Many are concerned that underwriting has are both highly valued and widely heard become more prevalent and annoying, and by listeners. Consequently, they generate that it may eventually force changes in pro- almost a third of all listener support. gramming. n Local classical music is widely heard but not n Some say they are less likely to contribute as highly valued. While it generates almost to public radio as more businesses support a quarter of the listening to public radio, it it. produces a fifth of all listener support. Public radio transcends simple demograph- n The value that listeners place on program- ics to speak to listeners’ interests, values, ming is based more on its importance in their and beliefs. lives than on their incomes. n People listen to public radio programming n Listeners generally value news over music, because it resonates with their interests, entertainment over news. values, and beliefs. This appeal generally cuts across age, sex and race. n Listeners generally place higher value on network programming than on local pro- n Appeal can also cut across program genres gramming. and format types. Different programs and

The Essential Findings of AUDIENCE 98 4 AUDIENCE 98 formats may appeal to the same kind of lis- present in numbers that reflect the level of tener as long as they stay focused on that college education in their respective demo- listener’s interests, values, and beliefs. graphic groups. n Changes in the sound and sensibility of pro- n For most public radio stations, increasing gramming can alter its appeal. When pro- public service – and public support – means gramming appeal changes, so does the kind better serving the needs of college-edu- of listener it attracts. cated Americans. n Public radio’s primary appeal most strongly n But the principle of appeal allows us to serve attracts Americans with college or advanced well any kind of listener we choose, as long degrees. as the programming we air consistently reflects the interests, values and beliefs of n They are younger and older, women and that listener. men of many racial and ethnic backgrounds,

AUDIENCE 98 5 The Essential Findings of AUDIENCE 98 blank page

The Essential Findings of AUDIENCE 98 6 AUDIENCE 98 2.

Programming Causes Audience

“Programming causes audience” is public radio’s shorthand for the direct relationship between the programming decisions we make and the listeners we have. It reminds us that our audience is no accident, and that its size and composition are always under our control.

Programming is a lot like bait. What we catch depends on what we set out. Honey draws bees, worms lure fish, and a hunk of liver will bring stray cats to your door. But the liver won’t do much for the bees or the fish, and the cats won’t come around for honey or worms.

In the same way, certain kinds of listeners are attracted to certain kinds of programming. So when we choose what we air, we select who will listen – and also who won’t.

Of course, listeners aren’t prey, but we do want to capture their attention and loyalty. We can do that best when we understand as much as possible about their interests and qualities.

In this first chapter, AUDIENCE 98 offers key characteristics of public radio’s listeners and demonstrates how different programming causes different audiences.

AUDIENCE 98 7 Programming Causes Audience Programming Causes Audience 8 AUDIENCE 98 A Community of Characters The VALS of Public Radio’s Audience

Public radio is like any community: it depends Actualizer-Fulfilleds are public radio’s leading on a core group of citizens to give it life and citizens, the heart of our core. support. Actualizer-Fulfilleds listen more, give more, We’ve known for some time that listeners with and are more likely to have a “sense of com- certain characteristics – VALS Actualizers and munity” for public radio than any other lis- Fulfilleds – are well represented in our commu- tener. nity. Together they form the foundation of our They are served by programming that informs public service and support. They account for and entertains educated listeners. Seven-in- 72% of all listening and over 80% of all lis- 10 have advanced degrees, and virtually all tener income. have graduated from college. Now AUDIENCE 98 adds a third dimension to our Actualizer-Fulfilleds amplify the shared charac- understanding: teristics of Actualizers and Fulfilleds, so it’s no The confluence of these personality types surprise that their strong sense of civic respon- – a “micro-segment” of Actualizer-Fulfilleds sibility makes them the most likely listeners to – seems to be at the center of public radio’s support their public radio community. appeal. Fully half are current givers, and of these Actualizer-Fulfilleds: two-thirds contribute at least $50 per year. Leading Citizens Leading citizens that they are, Actualizer- Fulfilleds give us two out of every five lis- No more can we say an Actualizer is an tener dollars. They can afford it: These Actualizer is an Actualizer. In VALS parlance middle-aged listeners (average age: 50) have there are two types of Actualizer: an average annual household income over An Actualizer-Fulfilled has the secondary $100,000. traits of a Fulfilled. Every time we open a mike, they’re one-in-three An Actualizer-Other has the secondary traits listening. of some other VALS type. The extraordinary educational attainment of public radio’s primary VALS types is Public Radio’s VALSTM 2 Types shown above. The size of each circle represents the amount of listening done by 100% Actualizer-Fulfilled each type of listener. The crosshairs mark the average across the entire public ra- 80% Actualizer- dio system. Other Fulfilled 60% Actualizer-Others: Achiever Reliable Residents 40%

Experiencer Public radio’s other Actualizers are actu- 20% ally a group of assorted VALS “micro-seg- Striver

Percent withCollege Degree Struggler Maker Believer ments”, all with the primary identification 0% 20 30 40 50 60 70 of Actualizer and a variety of secondary Age (Average in Years) types.

AUDIENCE 98 9 Programming Causes Audience Actualizer-Others don’t listen as much as Fulfilleds are active participants in public radio’s Actualizer-Fulfilleds, but they consider public community. They listen nearly 10 hours a radio nearly as important in their lives. These week – two-and-a-half hours more than listen- are solid, dependable citizens. They may not ers outside the dominant VALS types. Half are frequent the community center as much as in our core. Actualizer-Fulfilleds but they certainly appreci- One of their chief characteristics is their lifelong ate the need for it. thirst for knowledge; our programming feeds Their strong sense of social commitment their keen interests in world events, social is- leads one-in-three to contribute. sues and the arts. One of their most satisfy- ing pastimes is listening to classical music. Ten years younger than Actualizer-Fulfilleds, with somewhat fewer resources, Actualizer-Oth- Many Fulfilleds are retired – which accounts for ers are still more loyal and responsive than their smaller incomes. They are public radio’s many other listeners. elders – vibrant, involved seniors who lend maturity and balance to our community. We don’t know for sure, but many seem on their ways to becoming Actualizer-Fulfilleds. Give On the Outskirts of Town them a few years to earn their advanced degrees and good salaries and they’ll have the The rest of public radio’s listeners are scattered resources to move into the Actualizer-Fulfilleds’ among six other VALS types, none of which neighborhoods. exceeds 6% of the audience. Together, they do slightly more than a quarter of the listening; one- Fulfilleds: in-five contributes. But on average they listen Active Community Participants less each week than any of the three dominant VALS types. Although they’re more than three out of every 10 listening at this moment, Fulfilleds seem They live in our community and we’d be poorer to be the least known and appreciated VALS without them. But because of their small num- type. bers the force of their personalities is virtually nonexistent. Maybe it’s because they’re a little older and earn less money than either kind of Actualizer. Maybe – Leslie Peters it’s because their gifts to public radio are smaller. – Jay Youngclaus But one-in-three gives, and their gifts repre- – David Giovannoni sent almost a third of all listener income.

Programming Causes Audience 10 AUDIENCE 98 A Community of Characters Comparing VALS Types

The differences among these segments of so- Actualizer-Fulfilleds know the route best. ciety are in sharp focus when viewed through – Jay Youngclaus the lens of our Stairway to Given. Public radio’s three prevailing VALS types are Note: The Stairway to Given is explained in detail the most likely to travel up the Stairway. on pages 115-116.

Stairway to Given Actualizer- Actualizer- Fulfilled Others (For most-listened-to Public Radio Station) Fulfilled Other

Percent of Listeners 24 11 30 36 Percent of Listening 29 11 32 28 Percent of Givers 35 11 32 22 Percent of Giving 39 13 30 19

Steps 1&2 Percent in Core 61 48 51 36 Reliance Loyalty 51 38 42 30 on Public Years Listening to Station 11 8 11 8 Radio Percent with “Strong” Reliance on Public Radio 61 47 50 33 Percent who listen both Weekdays and Weekends 62 50 57 42 Occasions (per week) 10 8 8 6 TSL (HR:MN per week) 10:54 9:34 9:48 7:14

Step 3 Percent who agree Personal Public Radio Station Importance is Personally Important 94 92 91 83 Percent with “Strong” Sense of Community 72 65 58 40

Step 4 Percent with Beliefs Associated Funding with Giving to Public Radio 36 35 37 34 Beliefs

Step 5 Average Annual Ability Household Income $102,000 $74,000 $58,000 $41,000 to Afford

AUDIENCE 98 11 Programming Causes Audience A Community of Characters Fulfilled’s Other Flavor

Just as public radio’s Actualizers come in two In fact, the listening choices of both Actualizer- flavors, so do public radio’s Fulfilled listeners. Fulfilleds and Fulfilled-Actualizers are virtually identical: They each spend about a third of Close kin to Actualizer-Fulfilleds are Fulfilled- their public radio listening time to NPR Actualizers, a VALS micro-segment similar in newsmagazines, and about a third listening age, beliefs and interests — but with fewer re- to classical music. sources. Fulfilled-Actualizers are less apt to have ad- While Fulfilled-Others are likely to be older, pri- vanced degrees than Actualizer-Fulfilleds; they marily classical music listeners, also earn a little less. But in the ways that count any broad characterization of Fulfilleds as to public radio – listening and giving behavior – 60+ classical music listeners who avoid they are more like Actualizer-Fulfilleds than they news would be wrong. are like Fulfilled-Others. Confused? Don’t be. Public Radio Listening VALS is more nuanced than it first appears, but that’s also the source of its great value. Under- Actualizer- Fulfilled- standing that two respective flavors of Actualizer Fulfilleds Actualizers and Fulfilled share the nexus of public radio’s appeal is a powerful piece of knowledge. 29% 29% 32% 35% ME/ UDIENCE ME/ ATC A 98’s data about public radio’s impor- Classical ATC Classical tant VALS segments can help focus program- Daily Info Daily Info Jazz ming and fundraising efforts more effectively. The 7% Jazz Ent. 7% All Ent. Other All Other Music more detailed the information, the sharper the Else 7% Music Else 7% 8% 4% focus – and the more it can help. 10% 5% 11% 9% – Leslie Peters

Programming Causes Audience 12 AUDIENCE 98 A Community of Characters Appeal, Affinity, And Other Programming Considerations

Every minute of radio programming offers an genre of the program itself. attraction for a certain type of person. This at- There’s no guarantee that any two programs traction – the quality that brings listeners to it – of the same type or genre will have high affin- is called appeal. ity and work well together. Indeed, the appeals People listen to programming because it ap- of programs of the same type can differ peals to them. They choose one station over dramatically. others because it is the most appealing at that This is evident even at public radio’s “all news” time. and “all classical” stations, where programs that As a verb, to appeal means to provide a ser- are “in format” don’t serve core listeners as well vice that attracts certain types of listeners more as other programs. The example from AUDIENCE than others; as a noun, appeal is the intangible 88 was opera – one type of classical music with attribute of the service that attracts these lis- precious little affinity with most other classical teners. music. The appeal of a program is inseparable from Similarly, programs of wildly different types at- those who listen. The program creates the tract and serve the same people. A Prairie audience, and the characteristics of that audi- Home Companion and Car Talk entertain the ence define the program’s appeal. NPR news audience; their appeals are the same as Morning Edition’s and All Things Programs that serve very similar audiences – Considered’s. i.e., programs with highly congruent appeals – work better in combination. The degree to which Variety the appeals are congruent is called affinity. In the study of appeal and affinity, it’s critical to Programs that serve the same audiences have distinguish between two types of variety. high affinity. Programs that serve moderately different audiences have only moderate affin- Program variety is the contrast in the types ity. Programs that serve different audiences of programming on a station. All Things have no affinity. Considered, Marketplace, and Car Talk are different programs; they offer programmatic Appeal and affinity can inform the decisions of variety. programmers faced with many programming options. This knowledge can lead to improved Audience variety is the contrast in the types public service. of persons served by each type of programming on a station. Programs that appeal to Program Type younger persons are different than those that appeal to older persons. A common mistake is to equate appeal with a program’s type or genre: talk or music, news Program variety has to do with program type or entertainment, serious or whimsical, jazz or or genre. Audience variety has to do with the classical. types of listeners caused by various programs. Program type and appeal are not the same. Audience variety weakens a station’s pub- A program’s appeal, and subsequently its affin- lic service. Changing focus for short periods ity with other programs, is determined by the of time results in serving few, if any, listeners. qualities of listeners it attracts, not the type or

AUDIENCE 98 13 Programming Causes Audience Program variety can enhance public service. Power Indeed, the more program variety a person hears on a public station, the more value he A program’s power is its ability to draw listen- places on the service; the more important it is ers to the station. It is a measure of quantity, of in his life; the more likely he is to support the strength. station. Appeal is a quality, not a quantity. It tells who However, program variety is often at odds is listening, not how many are listening. It is with consistency of appeal. Program variety not a measure of strength. contributes to public service only when varied Even when two programs have identical ap- programs appeal to the same listeners. peals and therefore perfect affinity, the power This suggests a hierarchy of scheduling strate- of each may not necessarily be equal. One may gies. exert a stronger draw than the other; if so, it has more power. n High affinity (consistent and congruent appeal) among diverse program types consti- Assorted statistics reflect various facets of tutes a highly effective and highly valued power. Cume rating indicates the force with service. which a station reaches into the population; share shows the strength with which it competes n High affinity without program variety also in the market; and loyalty is its ability to serve constitutes a highly effective service, but its own cume. one that is less valued. n Low affinity among programs offers the Together, appeal, affinity, and power determine weakest public service, regardless of any the composition and size of the audience that is consistency among program types. – or that may be – served by a combination of programming options. As such, they inform decisions that can lead to stronger public service.

– David Giovannoni

Programming Causes Audience 14 AUDIENCE 98 A Community of Characters The Psychographic Consequences of Station Format

And you may ask yourself — age audience by listeners whose primary VALS Well...how did I get here? type is Actualizer. The vertical axis is the com- – David Byrne position by primary Fulfilleds.

Sometimes station managers make truly stra- Reading The Chart tegic format decisions. Now that we have VALS n At the top of the chart is KUSC with psy- information from AUDIENCE 98, we can clearly chographic coordinates at 56% Fulfilleds see the psychographic consequences of and 27% Actualizers. certain decisions. n Stations like KUSC in the upper left quad- Several years ago San Francisco’s KQED rant appeal to Fulfilleds more than dropped classical music to go all news, while Actualizers. KUSC in Los Angeles quit NPR for all classical. Directly opposite KUSC is WXPN with psycho- Philadelphia’s WXPN made a more unusual graphic coordinates at 16% Fulfilleds and 55% move towards adult alternative music. Actualizers.

Those decisions were made on the basis of n Stations like WXPN in the lower right quad- market competition, demographic targeting, and rant appeal to Actualizers more than rough projections of the potential for listener sup- Fulfilleds. port. VALS did not enter into the equation; none- To show the relationship between programming theless VALS figures significantly in the results. and psychographic appeal, we identified a few Psychographic Territory outlying cases: High Fulfilleds/Low Actualizers The chart shows the VALS AQH composition of the audiences for 30 public radio stations. KUSC 56% - 27% The horizontal axis is the contribution to aver- WGUC 52% - 21% WITF 47% - 23% Low Fulfilleds/High Psychographic Appeal of 30 Stations Actualizers

60% KUSC KQED 25% - 63% WGUC KUOW 27% - 63% 50% WITF WNYC 22% - 63% 40% WERN Going All News WETA 30% KUOW It was not the motive at the time, KQED but stations that focused mostly WNYC 20% on news – KUOW, KQED, WXPN WBUR, WHYY – were really fo- ListeningFulfilleds by 10% cusing mostly on Actualizers. By 0% emphasizing network news and 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% information, they effectively nar- Listening by Actualizers rowed their psychographic appeal.

AUDIENCE 98 15 Programming Causes Audience You may be surprised to see that WXPN did The distances between public stations would the same. Blowing off the Fulfilleds, WXPN plays become insignificant on a map of commercial contemporary music for Actualizers. radio formats like country, rap, hard rock or CHR. They drive away the Actualizers and Going All Classical Fulfilleds while serving listeners in the other six (less educated) VALS types. KUSC’s mostly classical format really attracts the Fulfilleds. But aside from Marketplace and Where Do You Want To Be? Garrison Keillor, there’s not much in the format for Actualizers. Given the attractive economics of station con- solidation, public station managers have tended WGUC carries All Things Considered but not to think in terms of a news and information sta- Morning Edition. The station has a strong heri- tion linked to an all-classical. tage in classical music. Imagine two consolidated stations that would Mixed Formats be targeted psychographically – one aimed at Actualizers, the other Fulfilleds. What about WERN in Madison, WETA in our nation’s capital, and WNYC-FM in New York? Car Talk, for example, would go on the Each offers a mix of news, entertainment, and Actualizer channel along with some appro- classical music. priate music, perhaps like WXPN’s.

Heritage commercial classical stations offer Certain informational programs appealing to Fulfilleds another place to go in both the New York Fulfilleds, who read avidly to gain knowl- and Washington markets. In Madison there is no edge, could fit on the other channel along classical competition, which is why WERN has a with classical music. higher level of Fulfilleds than WETA or WNYC. The macro-formatics of program selection A larger concentration of Fulfilleds requires, by aren’t the only way to determine appeal. PDs definition, a smaller concentration of Actualizers. who actively manage their staffs make equally consequential decisions each day on the mi- Among the system’s major stations, WETA and cro-formatic level. Programming causes audi- WNYC have the highest concentrations of ence – even if we’re only talking about adding Actualizer-Fulfilleds – public radio’s key VALS a track into rotation or giving direction to a news- micro-segment. This suggests that a mix of pro- caster. grams and formats can serve an Actualizer-Ful- filled audience. While the psychographic consequences of the stations charted here resulted from format de- Zoom In – Zoom Out cisions, understanding public radio’s dominant Of course, if you want to see the psychographic VALS types and their programming preferences positioning of public radio stations from the can give managers and programmers more larger perspective of commercial radio, stick this precise control when deciding where they want chart on the wall and back up about 100 feet. to be and whom they want to serve. All of the data points will converge into one fuzzy mark at the center. – Dr. George Bailey

Programming Causes Audience 16 AUDIENCE 98 A Community of Characters Format Flavors

National programs sound essentially the same Up/Down attributes. no matter what station they’re on. Their appeal What do these flavors sound like? There’s no is constant across stations. simple answer, other than to listen for clues at This is not the case with locally produced pro- the stations that produce them. grams. It is futile to talk about the appeal of “local jazz” or “local classical” when the same genre Why VALS? appeals to an older audience on one station, a Public radio is off the charts in its appeal to the younger audience on another, a racially diverse VALS Actualizer-Fulfilled micro-segment. At the audience on another, and so forth. nexus of the Actualizer and Fulfilled personali- There are, in fact, many “flavors” of local jazz and ties, this listener’s values and principles strongly classical programming. For this analysis we have reflect the inherent appeal of public radio’s pro- chosen two classical and two jazz flavors based on gramming; they are what set public radio apart. the VALS2 characteristics of their local audiences. Actualizer-Fulfilleds seek weekday news pro- n Upstairs Classical attracts very high con- grams and several weekend news and enter- centrations of Actualizer-Fulfilleds (38%) tainment shows. These programs have high af- and listeners with advanced college degrees finity with Upstairs Classical, because it too at- (38%). tracts high concentrations of Actualizer-Fulfilleds. n Downstairs Classical, in comparison, at- Programmers who move their local classi- tracts lower concentrations of these listen- cal from Downstairs to Upstairs have a bet- ers (although at 16% of this VALS type, and ter chance of becoming valued services to 21% with advanced degrees, it is still quite these listeners. distinct from the American population). The affinities of Uptown Jazz run highest with n Uptown Jazz is between Upstairs and weekend entertainment shows. Downstairs Classical in its attraction to Actualizer-Fulfilleds (30% are of this VALS Programmers who air both will have a more type and 28% have advanced degrees). difficult time finding national programming with which to anchor the weekdays, as very n Downtown Jazz attracts very low concen- little else on public radio currently shares the trations of Actualizer-Fulfilleds by public appeal of Uptown Jazz. radio standards. Still, at nine percent, this VALS type is more than twice as preva- The Downtown Jazz audience is so distinct that no lent in this audience as in the U.S. popu- other major programming on public radio appeals lation. to it. These names convey no value judgments on Programmers who serve this audience have only the formats or audiences, nor do they reflect each other to turn to for programmatic support. music selections or presentation styles. They simply describe format flavors having certain – David Giovannoni

AUDIENCE 98 17 Programming Causes Audience Technical note: The number of retirees, eggheads, WAMC, WBAA, WCVE, WDAV, WETA, WEVO, WHRO, WKAR, or other populations under a station’s signal can sway WKNO, WLTR, WMFE, WMHT, WNED, WNYC, WOI, WOSU, the reported flavor of its music. So can the audience WPNE, WRKF, WSHU, WTEB, WUNC, WUOT, WVIA, WVPR, brought to the music by other programming on the WVTF, WWFM. station. The full mathematical complexity of these issues is treated in the “Radio Intelligence” anthology. Downstairs Classical The simpler intent here is to apply the VALS typology The right bars on the graphs below show the to advance the concepts of appeal and affinity. appeal of Downstairs Classical. The local clas- Upstairs Classical sical programming on these stations defines the flavor: KANU, KBAQ, KBYU, KCSC, KHCC, KNPR, KPAC, KSJN, The left bars on the graphs below show the KUAT, KUOP, KVNO, WABE, WAUS, WBJC, WCAL, WCNY, WERN, appeal of Upstairs Classical. The local classi- WFCR, WFDD, WGBH, WGTE, WGUC, WILL, WITF, WKSU, cal programming on these stations defines the WMEA, WMNR, WMPN, WMUK, WPKT, WPLN, WQCS, WQED, flavor: KBPS, KCFR, KUHF, KUSC, KVPR, KWAX, KXPR, WSCL, WSFP, WSMC, WUFT, WUSF, WWNO, WXXI.

Upstairs/Downstairs Classical: Upstairs/Downstairs Classical: Age Education 75% 75%

45% 43% 39% 38% 29% 27% 26% 24% 23% 25% 21% 18% 18%

Percent of Audience 10% Percent of Audience 8% 8% 0% 0% No Degree College Some Advanced Echo/Gen X Baby Boom Swing (52-64) WW II (65+) Degree Advanced Degree (12-32) (33-51)

Upstairs/Downstairs Classical: VALS Type

75%

36% 38%

22% 23% 18% 16% 18% 16%

Percent of Audience of Percent 7% 7%

0% Other Fulfilled- Actualizer- Fulfilled- Actualizer- Types Other Other Actualizer Fulfilled

Programming Causes Audience 18 AUDIENCE 98 Uptown Jazz Downtown Jazz The left bars on the graphs below show the ap- The right bars on the graphs below show the peal of Uptown Jazz. The local jazz program- appeal of Downtown Jazz. The local jazz pro- ming on these stations defines the flavor: KBEM, gramming on these stations defines the flavor: KCSM, KLON, KMHD, KPLU, KUVO, KXJZ, WCVE, WDET, WBEZ, WBGO, WBRH, WDUQ, WLRN, WRTI, WSIE. WGBH, WJAB, WWOZ.

Uptown/Downtown Jazz: Uptown/Downtown Jazz: Age Education

75% 75% 69%

47% 37% 38% 28% 27% 28% 21% 20% 16% 13% 15% 12% 14%

Percent of Audience Percent of Audience 10% 5% 0% 0% Echo/Gen X Baby Boom Swing (52-64) WW II (65+) No Degree College Some Advanced (12-32) (33-51) Degree Advanced Degree

Uptown/Downtown Jazz: VALS Type 75%

58%

30% 26% 19% 18% 13% 12% Percent of Audience of Percent 8% 9% 9%

0% Other Fulfilled- Actualizer- Fulfilled- Actualizer- Types Other Other Actualizer Fulfilled

AUDIENCE 98 19 Programming Causes Audience This graph shows the relationship among Up- This graph shows the relationship among Up- stairs/Downstairs Classical and Uptown/ stairs/Downstairs Classical and Uptown/ Downtown Jazz with regard to their listeners’ Downtown Jazz with regard to their listen- education and VALS type, compared to the U.S. ers’ education and age, compared to the U.S. population. population.

– Jay Youngclaus

Four Flavors of Local Music: Four Flavors of Local Music: Education and VALS Education and Age

50% 50% Upstairs Upstairs Classical Classical Uptown Uptown Jazz Downstairs Jazz Downstairs 25% Classical 25% Classical Downtown Downtown Jazz Jazz USA USA Percent with Advanced Degree PercentAdvanced with Degree 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 45 50 55 60 Percent Actualizer-Fulfilled Average Age in Years

Programming Causes Audience 20 AUDIENCE 98 A Community of Characters Appeal & Affinity Basics

Appeal ences and don’t work well together. Programs with no affinity with a station’s audience do not Every radio program is like a magnet. It attracts contribute to the station’s public service. certain types of people and leaves others un- moved; it may even repulse some. Public Service This attraction is called appeal, and like mag- Radio stations serve the public best when they netism we can’t see it directly – we can only focus their appeal on a certain type of listener. see its effects. It’s the privilege of the licensee and manage- We characterize a program’s appeal by the type ment to choose that listener. But once chosen, of people drawn to it. For instance, a program the greatest public service focuses like a laser that attracts older listeners has an “older” appeal to meet his needs and interests, and the needs that’s qualitatively different from a program with and interests of people like him. a “younger” appeal. Commercial stations focus on the age, sex, and Discrete programs have appeal. Format blocks sometimes race of the listener. Public stations have appeal. Indeed, stations have appeal. In typically operate in a fourth dimension of edu- every case, appeal is characterized by the quali- cation: their listeners are often the most highly ties of the listeners who are attracted. educated in town. Affinity Resolution Affinity is the degree to which two appeals Our assessment of appeal is only as fine as match. It can be high, non-existent, or some- the lenses through which we view listeners. Sex, where in between. age, and race are usually sufficient to resolve differences in appeals. Programs with extremely similar audiences – that is, with the same appeal – have high affin- AUDIENCE 98 adds the high resolution lenses of ity. Conversely, programs that appeal to very education and VALS2. Do programs that look different types of listeners have no affinity. the same under the sex/age/race lens look different when the educational attainment or VALS Similarly, a program’s appeal can be compared of their audiences are viewed? to a station’s appeal to yield the affinity between the pair – in other words, the degree to which Powerful before, our lens can now resolve even the two audiences will mesh. finer traits. The sharply detailed audience por- traits that result inform even more appropriate The degree of affinity informs the appropriate- and powerful programming decisions. ness of a program decision. Programs with no affinity serve different audi- – David Giovannoni

AUDIENCE 98 21 Programming Causes Audience A Community of Characters VALS Notes

Where Are the Soc-Cons? more likely to be committed to social causes than Actualizers with another secondary designation. When AUDIENCE 88 first used VALS to describe our audience 10 years ago, the most prominent Why Use VALS? listener type to emerge was the Inner-Directed, The more we know about listeners the better intellectually curious, iconoclastic, Societally we can serve them, and the more likely we are Conscious “Soc-Con.” A secondary group of to earn their loyalty and support. Outer-Directed, success-driven, status quo de- fending Achievers was also prevalent. That’s why VALS is such a powerful tool. It gets us inside listeners’ heads for a look at the val- The VALS of today is actually VALS2, a more ues and beliefs that motivate them. market-driven version of the original VALS. Under the new system our prevalent listener VALS explains why people act as they do as personalities are Actualizers and Fulfilleds. Soc- consumers and as social beings. Unlike other Cons are gone, and today’s Achievers are so segmentation schemes organized by geogra- substantially redefined that we don’t find many phy, age, or other demographics, VALS is based in our audience. on human psychology. That’s what makes it powerful. Dual Personalities For instance, as programmers, producers, de- Though we’re accustomed to referring to VALS velopment professionals, and promotion spe- types by one of the eight major category names, cialists we craft messages to draw particular everyone has a “dual personality.” It’s a combi- responses from listeners. Understanding how nation of two VALS types – a primary identity they perceive themselves and their world helps modified by a secondary designation. VALS us choose the programming, the words, and calls this a “micro-segment.” (The primary type the appeals that can accomplish our ends more alone is called a “macro-segment.”) effectively. While the traits described in each VALS macro- Ours to Lose segment are likely characteristics of anyone in that category, all may not apply. Micro-segments VALS micro-segments are most useful in “niche” acknowledge that human beings are far more or highly competitive markets such as radio. complex than any single VALS category can re- Indeed, public radio owns the Actualizer-Ful- port. filled radio market. One-quarter of our listeners are Actualizer- This micro-segment represents only four per- Fulfilleds – that is, Actualizers with Fulfilled char- cent of the US adult population. But every day acteristics. In such a combination, the qualities public radio is heard by one-quarter – each and values shared by Actualizers and Fulfilleds week by over one-half – of all Actualizer- are amplified. For example, social responsibility Fulfilleds in America. is a key trait for both. Actualizer-Fulfilleds are

Programming Causes Audience 22 AUDIENCE 98 What’s Your Sign? You can find out for sure by completing the VALS questionnaire on the Internet at Your beliefs about public radio have attracted http://www.future.sri.com. you to it, just as they have attracted our listeners. You are quite likely an Actualizer, a Fulfilled, It’s short, quick, and free. or even an Actualizer-Fulfilled if you work in – Leslie Peters public radio.

AUDIENCE 98 23 Programming Causes Audience A Community of Characters Operative Affinity

The audiences for urban country and NPR news estimates – but not nearly as often or as much share similar sex, age, and race appeals. Affin- as education. ity seems high based on these three facets alone. How We Know This But examine another facet – education – and the affinity plummets. In this case the education We know this because we examined the num- lens reveals the largest difference in appeal; bers for all major national program combina- education is the affinity that is most operative. tions tracked by AUDIENCE 98. Operative affinity is the lowest affinity score We use as baseline affinities those based on age, among all of those calculated. It is our best sex, and race alone. When we add the educa- guess at the true affinity. tion lens, we get better affinity estimates 62 percent of the time – very significant improvement. Think of it this way: the more lenses we have to look through, the better able we are to see When the VALS lens is added on top of this, meaningful differences between audiences. the affinity estimates improve 21 percent of the time. However, most improvements are small, Unfortunately, lenses are not free. AUDIENCE 98 with only five percent changing the category of is able to add education and VALS2 to our arse- affinity at all – typically from “very high” to “high”. nal of lenses, but one time only. Are they worth it? Should we buy them again in the future? These nuances revealed by the VALS lens may be useful, but are they worth it? Let’s take each in turn and see how it adds to our ability to improve upon our affinity scores. Refining Appeal & Affinity Tools Education and VALS We ask in order to determine how precise our tools need to be in the future, and how much The age, sex, and race of listeners come they need to cost. bundled in Arbitron’s basic package of listening data. Recently Arbitron began measuring It is clearly worth pursuing the education data the educational attainment of listeners. And it’s now gathered by Arbitron for ongoing assess- something we should pursue, because edu- ments of appeal and affinity. cation determines the operative affinity VALS is another matter. Although it has many among major programs more than half of potentially powerful applications in public radio, the time. refining affinity estimates does not seem to be Gathering VALS information on each listener is one of them. Given its expense, we can conan expensive process, requiring a special survey tinue to compare the appeals of public radio pro- that asks each listener several dozen questions. grams quite well without it. VALS does improve the accuracy of our affinity – David Giovannoni

Programming Causes Audience 24 AUDIENCE 98 A Community of Characters Evaluating VALS

VALS is an enormously useful tool for public ra- Unlike Arbitron, VALS doesn’t gather new in- dio. It’s our chief source of psychological infor- formation every quarter. It’s a system of con- mation about our listeners, and the most com- cepts that doesn’t change much over time. prehensive system we have that details their Through AUDIENCE 98, CPB is making the cur- values and interests. rent VALS system available to public radio. And AUDIENCE 98, through its findings about VALS VALS is part of public radio’s two major audi- and our listeners, already supplies the public ence research projects – AUDIENCE 88 and radio lens. AUDIENCE 98. For most in the industry, these two studies have been the only means of ac- Today our industry has a powerful database, cessing VALS – an expensive product that most ripe with possibilities for VALS-based public ra- stations can’t afford. dio applications. Though the VALS vendor would gladly sell its array of VALS-based prod- In that way, VALS is analogous to the Arbitron ucts to us, public radio is too small a market for data that were also, at one time, priced beyond it to create the special tools that could serve us the reach of public radio. Not until CPB and later best. For example: the Radio Research Consortium brokered an affordable deal with Arbitron did public radio n Creating and testing a variety of targeted know if anyone was listening, much less whom. VALS-derived fundraising messages that not only raise money but also reduce pledge Though some once thought otherwise, public drive damage. radio could not have flourished without Arbitron information. Unless we know how we’re doing n Testing air personalities for their appeal to in the most basic way – who’s listening – we our dominant VALS listener types. can’t possibly begin to understand how to im- n Assessing new program concepts in the prove our service. same way before investing in them. Yet Arbitron’s ratings were invented to sell ad- I can hear producers yelping from here: Garri- vertising for its main clients – buyers and sellers son Keillor would never have happened! Car Talk of commercial radio time. Public radio’s business wouldn’t exist! is public service. But my long experience with program develop- That’s why many in our industry look at Arbitron ment, my study of VALS theory, and my data through a public service lens, using con- familiarity with AUDIENCE 98’s data tell me cepts like “loyalty” that appear only in tools cre- otherwise. ated specifically for public radio. Many would I believe that as a public service, public radio’s agree that the creation of these tools was as challenge is to attract significant public sup- important a development for the industry as the port for an intellectually honest, commercially Arbitron deal itself. uninfluenced programming product. It’s a much Public radio could benefit in the same way trickier business than General Motors’ or from specific public radio applications of Nike’s. That’s why commercial VALS products VALS, a sales product also created for com- just won’t do. mercial clients. And that’s also why leaving the powerful field of

AUDIENCE 98 25 Programming Causes Audience human psychology undeveloped as a resource highly educated, values-driven people. But we for programming and fundraising decisions sim- were too dumb to invest further in VALS after ply doesn’t make sense. AUDIENCE 88, and we missed out on its many possible benefits. Of all the possibilities for further research that AUDIENCE 98 has raised, applications In 10 years our listeners have earned graduate based on our listeners’ values and interests degrees by the millions. But have we gotten any seem to hold the most promise. smarter?

We’re an industry of highly educated, values- – Leslie Peters driven professionals who rely on the support of

Programming Causes Audience 26 AUDIENCE 98 3.

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects

Does public radio appeal to the children of Baby Boomers? Is public radio serving racial and ethnic minorities? Will classical music’s older listeners die soon? And if so, will they take classical music with them?

Like Casablanca’s police prefect Louis Renault, AUDIENCE 98 rounds up these usual suspects, knowing full well they aren’t the genuine culprit. Public radio’s audience is a virtual community of educated Americans drawn by the values, beliefs and interests of its programming. Age and sex, racial and ethnic background, income and social status – each and every one is a phony suspect – a beard, a shill – subservient to the real mastermind: education. Education lurks behind the answer to every question about the audience. The usual suspects, however, continue to distract us. Once again, it’s time to line them up and expose them.

AUDIENCE 98 27 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 28 AUDIENCE 98 Public Radio’s Minority Audiences

The most important thing to understand about best moments it transcends racial and ethnic public radio’s minority audience is this: differences. It focuses on virtual communities of listeners who share the values and attitudes There is one. formed by their educational experience. In fact, there are many. The second strategy targets listeners who One-in-seven listeners identify themselves as share certain racial or ethnic characteristics. It being other than white. That’s over three mil- focuses primarily on persons with these char- lion minority listeners tuning in each week – acteristics. double the number of 10 years ago. The Strategy To Transcend The second most important thing to understand is what serves these listeners: Thirty years ago, public radio set forth a beacon of public service to advance understand- Most listen because of their interest in pub- ing among people of good will; to unite rather lic radio’s hallmark programming. than divide; to include rather than exclude; to Efforts to “target” minority audiences are not transcend races and creeds, origins and situa- without merit or success. But public radio serves tions. more minority listeners – and generally serves The mission embodied in this strategy holds as them better – with the news, information, and self-evident that a person’s character, values, entertainment programming for which it is best and attitudes are more relevant than one’s ra- known by all of its listeners. cial or ethnic background. It emphasizes the The remaining point to take away is this: similarities among people rather than their differences. Public radio’s minority audience will continue to grow because the college-educated mi- Most public radio programming embraces this nority population will continue to grow. mission. And it serves minority listeners well. Indeed, most minority listeners are drawn to In sum: Public radio’s service to minority audi- public radio for its hallmark news, information, ences has never been greater. All signs point music, and entertainment programming. to even more minority listeners seeking what public radio does best: programming that tran- When measured by their character, public scends racial and ethnic differences, program- radio’s minority listeners have more in common ming that embraces the values and attitudes of with other public radio listeners than with non- an educated citizenry. listeners who share their ethnic or racial backgrounds. Two Service Strategies Formal education sets them apart. To address the future, we must understand the two distinct strategies through which public ra- So do their attitudes and values – most dio attracts and serves minority listeners today. clearly viewed through the VALS 2 personality types. The first strategy ignores demographic distinctions of age and sex, race and ethnicity. In its Indeed, character, attitudes, and values are at the heart of this transcendent appeal. As

AUDIENCE 98 29 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects we move forward with policy and programming n We were right to encourage full-time ser- initiatives: vices to these listeners – especially in markets with several public stations. n We would be right to accept that most public radio listening is to programming that A Powerful Combination – seeks to transcend. This is as true for mi- A Powerful Contradiction nority listeners as it is for others. n We would be wrong to compromise this In geographic communities where stations seek programming’s appeal by bending it toward to serve different audiences, the two strategies the strategy to target. These two strategies offer a viable public service combination. How- are incompatible in the same program ever, stream. the strategy to transcend racial heritage and n We would be right to assume that the strat- the strategy to target it are at direct opera- egy to transcend is well aligned with power- tional odds. ful demographic trends among America’s They serve such vastly different audiences that minority populations. they do not and cannot serve the public when The Strategy To Target implemented on a single station. Other minority listeners are served by a strat- The strategy to transcend racial heritage egy that beckons to people of specific racial or and the strategy to target it are at direct ethnic backgrounds. philosophical odds. Targeted policy and programming initiatives are The targeting strategy emphasizes differences at the heart of this strategy – adjusted through in our racial and cultural backgrounds. The the years as we’ve learned how best to imple- transcendence strategy emphasizes similari- ment it: ties in our characters. n We were right to create programming to Is one strategy better than another? address the needs and appeal to the val- AUDIENCE 98 cannot inform this philosophical ues, attitudes, and lifestyles of these and political debate. listeners. However, AUDIENCE 98 can tell us which strat- n We were wrong to broadcast this program- egy is currently more effective. ming on stations that serve other listeners – Frank Tavares most of the time (i.e., stations employing the – David Giovannoni strategy to transcend).

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 30 AUDIENCE 98 Public Radio’s Minority Audiences Triangulating on Today’s Minority Audiences

Measuring minority listening poses a number Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino lis- of challenges, as many Americans are mixtures teners, and all listening by Asian/Pacific Islander of race, ethnicity, and cultural heritage. and Native American/Indian listeners, is recorded but simply not tagged as such. No two sources agree on an exact number of minority public radio listeners. However, by tri- Triangulation: Point 3. The Public Radio Re- angulating on several points, we conclude that contact Survey (upon which AUDIENCE 98 is 12 to 15 percent of public radio’s listeners – based) finds many people defined as “Black” about one-in-seven – claim membership in or “Hispanic” in the Arbitron survey refine their a racial or ethnic minority group. self-identification as “Other/ Mixed.” Across this wide and representative sample, Triangulation: Point 1. “Profile 98” – published by National Public Radio and based on n Five percent identify themselves as “Black/ Simmons’ Spring 1998 “Study of Media and African American” Markets” – estimates that 14.7 percent of pub- n Two percent identify themselves as “His- lic radio’s listeners identify themselves as some- panic/Latino” thing other than “White.” n Two percent identify themselves as “Asian/ Triangulation: Point 2. From Arbitron’s Fall Pacific Islander” 1996 survey (upon which AUDIENCE 98 is n Less than one percent identify themselves based): as “Native American/Indian” n At least 8.8 percent of all public radio listen- n Three percent identify themselves as ers say they are “Black.” “Other/Mixed” n At least 3.5 percent of all public radio listen- Source: Public Radio Recontact Survey, ers say they are “Hispanic.” responding sample. Source: Public Radio Recontact Survey, These independent measures triangulate on a starting sample. 12-to-15 percent range of public radio listeners These numbers are minimums. Arbitron mea- who identify themselves as something other sures and reports all listening by all people, but than “White/Caucasian.” it does not ascertain every listener’s race or – Jay Youngclaus ethnicity. Therefore, some radio listening by – David Giovannoni

AUDIENCE 98 31 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Public Radio’s Minority Audiences Populations Trends

Driven by the strategy to transcend, the single college-educated minority population. most defining characteristic of public radio’s The conclusions are obvious. audience today is its college education. If it remains so into the future, public radio can n Powerful population trends are certainly con- expect to serve even more minority listen- tributing to public radio’s minority service, ers tomorrow. and there is every indication that they will continue to do so. As the number of well-educated minority citizens grows, so grows public radio’s n Public radio has gotten better and more minority audience. readily available in the last 10 years, thereby causing a rate of growth in minority ser- The graph below shows the number of black vice that outstrips even the most power- and Hispanic Americans who have earned at ful demographic trends. least a bachelor’s degree – a number that has increased nearly six-fold in the last 30 years. Whether we continue investing in these improvements and enhancements is up to us. The cost of riding the demographic trend is free. Number of Blacks and Hispanics with Bachelor’s Degree or More The graph below shows the combined impact of these forces in a snapshot of today’s audi- AUDIENCE 98 ence. Younger listeners, like younger Ameri- cans, are most likely to claim membership in a racial or ethnic minority group. AUDIENCE 88

Percent of Each Age Cohort In Public Radio’s Audience In Public Radio’s Audience In The U.S. Population 25% That is Non-White 21% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

The upward trend is evident, and demographers Gen X expect it to continue. (21-32) 11% 8% The growth in public radio’s black and Hispanic Baby audience over the last 10 years is calibrated to Boom Swing 4% (33-51) (52-64) W.W. II the population line (AUDIENCE 98 compared to (65+) 0% AUDIENCE 88). Clearly, public radio’s service to black and His- – Jay Youngclaus panic audiences is growing even faster than the – David Giovannoni

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 32 AUDIENCE 98 Public Radio’s Minority Audiences You Get Who You Play For

It’s true. Programming causes minority audi- or should “represent” the entire population. ences the same way it causes people of any Do we expect minority listeners to be un- kind to become listeners. der-represented? Yes we do. When gauged People who visit public radio seek the values against the general population, minority listen- imbued in its programming. This is every bit as ing to public radio reflects long-standing edu- true for public radio’s minority listeners – cational inequities that are still being overcome. who are more like other listeners than their But these disparities diminish significantly when families and friends who don’t listen. minority listening is gauged against the college educated minority population. That’s a significant statement. Because it reminds us that listeners are best understood Is this what we want? Well, it’s what we set by what draws them to us – and not by where out to do 30 years ago – to provide a beacon they come from. of public service that places character over color. Two distinct programming, distribution, and policy strategies draw them to us – the strategy The character of this beacon is transcendent. to transcend distinctions of racial and ethnic It transcends geography with a “sense of com- heritage, and the strategy to target them. munity” engendered across vast physical distance. It transcends age and sex. And by oper- Today the strategy to transcend serves more ating in the enlightened dimension of minority Americans than does the strategy to education’s values and attitudes, it transcends target. However, the success of each strategy color through its very indifference to it. must be assessed in its own terms. The Strategy to Transcend The Strategy to Target Most public radio stations employ the strategy College education is the single most defining to transcend. But some of the more than 600 characteristic of public radio’s audience. We stations seek to serve minority listeners by often forget, ignore, or misinterpret this fact opening additional doors to them. when we assess our public service to minority listeners. Far from transcending racial and ethnic distinctions, these stations target them directly by de- Do minority listeners use public radio? Yes, fining their service, their niche, and their audi- they do. Like American citizens in the majority, ence in terms of race, ethnicity, and/or lan- those who have been to college are far more guages other than English. likely than others to listen to public radio’s dominant program services. Do minority listeners use these stations? Yes, in great concentrations – albeit not always Are minority listeners represented in the in great numbers. same proportions that they exist in the general population? No, they aren’t. Radio doesn’t Are minority listeners represented in the work that way. Each radio station must serve a same proportions as in the general popula- demographic segment of society – a niche – if tion? No, they’re over-represented, for reasons it is to compete in the highly fragmented me- already stated. dium. So by definition, no station’s audience can

AUDIENCE 98 33 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Do we expect minority listeners to be over- Is this what we want? Well, it’s what we set represented? We would certainly hope so; they out to do – to serve even more minority listen- are, after all, the types of people these stations ers with our programming. strive to serve. – Frank Tavares – David Giovannoni

The more education one has, the more likely themselves from their non-listening peers. The one is to listen to public radio. cross-hair shows the average for all public radio listeners. Segments of the audience are But it’s more than that. Public radio’s listeners shown individually. seek and reflect the values imbued in its programming. The best known system for identify- n Asian/Pacific Islanders who listen to public ing these values is VALS – specifically, the radio are nearly twice as likely to have col- Actualizer and Fulfilled personalities. lege degrees than their non-listening peers. They are also twice as likely to have The graph below indexes public radio listeners Actualizer or Fulfilled personalities. against the U.S. population (“U.S.”) to demonstrate that listeners of all types distinguish n Public radio’s Black/African American listeners are more than three times as likely as their non-listening peers to have Actualizer Education and Values Set or Fulfilled personalities and to have earned Public Radio’s Listeners Apart a bachelor’s degree.

7 n Hispanic/Latino listeners are nearly five 6 times as likely to have college degrees than Hispanic 5 their non-listening peers.

4 Black 3 White The levels of education, and the concentrations of 2 Asian Actualizer and Fulfilled VALS types in public radio’s 1 U.S.U.S. audience, are incomparable to any other mass elec- Index for Bachelor's Degree for Index Bachelor's 0 tronic broadcast channel in American society today. 01234567 Index for VALS Actualizer and Fulfilled Personalities These attributes define public radio’s position on the media landscape.

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 34 AUDIENCE 98 Public Radio’s Minority Audiences Transcendence Is An Unmet Need, Too

As a means of cultivating minority listening, pub- strongly resemble in interests and values, edu- lic radio’s strategy to transcend has gone virtu- cated minority listeners rarely find what they’re ally unnoticed within our industry. listening for on the right side of the dial, or on the AM band. In fact, public radio’s college-educated minority audience is an untold success story to be They are naturally drawn to public radio in num- celebrated. bers that reflect their percentage of the Ameri- can population. They are served by hallmark The Unmet Needs programming that assumes that one’s charac- Of Unserved Audiences ter and beliefs are more relevant than his race or ethnic background. The desire to serve the “unmet needs” of “unserved audiences” resonates strongly in public In this way public radio is truly unique and suc- radio’s collective conscience and mission. cessful in meeting the needs of college-educated minority citizens. It is an explicit objective of many services now targeting listeners on the basis of their racial As we seek to address “unserved” audiences, and ethnic characteristics. we must recognize that educated minority citizens are unserved too, and that their radio But a survey of commercial radio begs the ques- needs differ from others in their racial cohorts. tion, “What about the needs of the college-educated population – particularly those of the col- Given the projected boom in the number of mi- lege-educated minority population?” nority children going to college, public radio is poised to serve this minority community for The radio needs of college-educated Ameri- decades to come. cans would be virtually unfulfilled were not public radio currently meeting them through Just by doing what it does best now. its strategy to transcend. – Leslie Peters Like their white counterparts, whom they – David Giovannoni

AUDIENCE 98 35 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Public Radio’s Minority Audiences A Glass Half Full and Rising

When one door closes, another opens. African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific But we often look so regretfully upon the closed Islander, Native American/Indian, or some un- door that we don’t see the one which defined mix. has opened for us. – Alexander Graham Bell Over time we learned to use the tools our research friends have crafted for us. We learned Public radio reaches more Americans – white that listeners – minority and non-minority – will and non-white – than ever. And minority listen- not tune to a radio station unless its program- ers are a larger portion of this audience than ming as a whole appeals to them. ever. We also learned that not everyone will be at- Our success is a direct result of our program- tracted to the magnet of public radio programming – programming that causes audience. ming. It’s not that people are white or black or Hispanic or Asian or “other” – but that public To appreciate how far we’ve come, we have only radio’s service has an attitude that most to revisit the years immediately following the Americans simply do not share. Carnegie Commission Report and Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. That’s not good or bad. Few of us understood at the time what that re- It’s just how radio works. port presaged. Indeed, many of us radio types With these lessons, we have revisited our mis- working in those heady days had no concept of sions, reassessed our value, and learned to “public” radio. create programming that consistently serves an Any questions we asked about the audience audience of our choosing. As a result, we have had anecdotal answers. We imagined hundreds dramatically increased the numbers of listen- – if not thousands – of disenfranchised radio ers among all groups regardless of race or eth- users from dozens of different ethnic and racial nic background. groups flocking to our oasis for that 15-minute- With the bifocals of AUDIENCE 98 helping our a-week block program. aging hindsight, it’s easier to see a glass half Then about 20 years ago, audience research- full. It’s easier to appreciate how far we have ers like Larry Lichty, Tom Church, and David traveled, whom we do reach, and the doors Giovannoni hinted that we might be overesti- through which those listeners – both white and mating the effectiveness of our reach. minority – enter public radio. We ignored them, of course, focusing intently And we’re only 20 years in. on our own “research” – the letter and the phone During the next decades the numbers of public call and the note under our windshield wiper. radio listeners who identify themselves as other It took time to realize how very blurry our pic- than white will continue to grow. They’ll surely ture of the audience was. And how unfocused grow because the demographics of the Ameri- we were in understanding how people use ra- can public are moving in our direction. But they’ll dio – especially those who happen to be Black/ also grow because we’ll continue to apply the

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 36 AUDIENCE 98 programming lessons and strategies we’ve casters pledged to serve the needs of all of our learned…and will learn. listeners.

The charts, graphs, and paradigms of AUDIENCE A glass half full and rising. 08 and AUDIENCE 18 will reflect that growth – and demonstrate our continued faith as broad- – Frank Tavares

AUDIENCE 98 37 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Public Radio’s Generation X Audience

When we think of the people best served by Two Programming Paths public radio’s programming, we think first of Baby Boomers – the most highly educated seg- Public radio’s programming embodies certain ment of American society today. We also think social and cultural values that distinguish it from of older listeners served by public radio’s mix of other stations on the dial. These characteris- classical music, information, and entertainment. tics distinguish its listeners from their cohorts who don’t listen – whatever their age may be. We often forget that their 21-to-32 year old children and grandchildren are also listen- That said, Gen Xers enter public radio ing. through two distinct programming paths. Each path attracts a different Gen X character. There is no shortage of these Generation X listeners in public radio’s audience today. The first path is paved with programming highly Nearly three and one-half million of them listen identified with public radio – primarily news and to public radio each week. information, and to a lesser extent classical music and jazz. But these are not your stereotypical Gen Xers. They distinguish themselves from their The vast majority of Gen X listeners arrive contemporaries in the same way that older lis- via this path of hallmark programming on teners distinguish themselves from others in “mainstream” stations. their age cohort. Both Gen Xers and older listeners spend half Gen Xers who listen to public radio are their time with public radio tuned in to music. better educated than their peers. They are However, while classical music dominates lis- more than twice as likely to have a college tening by older persons, other types of music degree. are more attractive to Gen Xers. Most are Actualizers or Fulfilleds – In fact, music less commonly associated with VALS types associated with mature val- public radio offers an alternative pathway for ues. Public radio’s Gen Xers are three times some Gen X listeners. more likely to be Actualizers and five times Stations with high concentrations of Gen more likely to be Fulfilleds than the general Xers typically offer schedules devoid of Gen X population. news and loaded with “alternative” forms of Many have grown up with public radio, and music far from public radio’s norm. all have grown into it. Gen Xers tuned into these stations are less likely In fact, Gen X listeners have more to have college degrees. They’re less apt to be in common with older public radio Actualizers; Fulfilleds are nearly nonexistent. listeners than they have with What we see here is just another manifestation their peers. The reason, of course, is of the old maxim: programming causes audi- programming – the service we provide to ence. If we play for them and play well, they will listeners of all ages. come.

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 38 AUDIENCE 98 Yet the great majority of Gen Xers come to us have a negative impact on the vast majority of via our hallmark programming. Programming current listeners and givers. differences cause audience differences. It is unknown whether these two paths can ever – Jay Youngclaus find confluence. It is known, however, that do- – Leslie Peters ing so on “mainstream” public stations would – David Giovannoni

AUDIENCE 98 39 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Public Radio’s Generation X Audience Basic Principles

I shall never believe that God plays dice with the The most basic of principles: programming world. The Lord God is subtle, causes audience, and different programming but malicious he is not. causes different audiences. – Albert Einstein Today, public stations provide the programming AUDIENCE 98’s Gen X findings are like Einstein’s of choice for educated Americans. We domi- powerful “mind experiments”. Every result fol- nate this niche. So far we own it. lows from basic principles. We can build on this strength in preparation for Look at the main findings. the day our position will be challenged. n Our programming currently serves signifi- Or we can program for Gen Xers. cant numbers of Gen Xers. In fact, they’re We can’t do both on the same stations with- growing into our audience as fast as their out alienating the eight-in-nine listeners who Baby Boom parents did at their age. aren’t Gen Xers. We could have predicted that. Education is the This too follows from basic principles. We don’t primary determinant of public radio listening, and need to conduct the actual experiment to verify the Gen X cohort is becoming the best-educated the outcome. in history. Why wouldn’t the most basic law of public radio appeal apply to them? Basic Principal n The Xers who tune to public radio are in Replace “Gen X” with any other group of people. tune with its social and cultural values – The results of the mind experiment are the values that tend to blossom with high same. When those in our industry proclaim we levels of formal education. should serve more Gen Xers, minorities, or There’s no surprise here. Every station, pro- whomever, I say, “That’s terrific. Go forth and gram, and personality attracts those most in multiply.” tune with its social and cultural values. The val- n Multiply the number of programs it will take ues may be Cokie Roberts’ or Don Imus’ – each to serve this audience 24 hours a day, 365 resonates with those who choose to listen. days each year. n The Xers who tune to public radio are differ- n Multiply the number of stations it will take to ent than those who don’t – just as Boomers devote one in each market to this audience. who listen are different than those who don’t. n Multiply the dollars it will take to pay for this While other stations target a certain age, sex, programmatic and systematic expansion. or race of listener, public radio operates in a n Multiply the effort, focus, and expertise it will different dimension: education. We distinguish take to own this niche. That’s the only way ourselves from our peers; and so our listeners this service will be viable in our highly com- distinguish themselves from their peers. petitive medium. n The Xers who enter the audience for music Amidst all of this multiplying, we can’t forget to of their young lives are different from those subtract resources from stations and program- who enter for public radio’s hallmark pro- ming that might better serve the current audi- gramming. ence or strengthen our existing position.

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 40 AUDIENCE 98 So before we divert resources to focus on Gen dience that isn’t so highly educated. We Xers or minorities or whomever, let’s acknowl- leave our area of expertise. We may even com- edge and accept that we already serve the well- promise deeply held ideals and highly esteemed educated component of each of these cohorts. standards. Strengthening our current service will better No value judgment expressed or implied. Just serve more people of any well-educated stripe. a reminder of basic principles. In fact, when we say we want a different – David Giovannoni audience, we’re really saying we want an au-

AUDIENCE 98 41 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Public Radio’s Generation X Audience How Generation X Uses Public Radio

Public radio’s Gen Xers are slightly lighter radio Gen Xers rely less on public radio than do users than older listeners, listening about two older listeners. They tune in less frequently and fewer hours per week. Because they use more are less loyal. They are also less likely to listen stations, Gen X listeners are more radio active during both weekdays and weekends while being less radio dependent.

Occasions TSL Loyalty Listen Both per Week (HR:MM/wk) Weekends and Weekdays Generation X 5.6 6:18 29% 42% All Listeners 7.0 8:31 36% 48%

AUDIENCE 98 offers evidence that these listen- Most public radio listening is to classical music, ers are “growing into” public radio. Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and jazz. This hallmark programming generates Three-in-four Gen X listeners say they most of the listening by Gen Xers, with one no- are using public radio more in recent table exception: years. Gen X listeners are not as attracted to clas- Public Radio Listening sical music as older listeners. Public radio’s Gen Xers spend roughly the All Listeners Gen X Listeners same amount of time as other listeners tuned to jazz. The largest block of their public radio 18% 27% 29% music listening is to alternatives such as AAA, 29% blues, rhythm & blues, and rock. ME/ Classical ME/ Classical ATC 11% ATC – Jay Youngclaus Jazz – Leslie Peters Jazz OtherOther Other 10% Other Music 21% Music 20% 22% 13%

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 42 AUDIENCE 98 Public Radio’s Generation X Audience Cases From the X-Files

The niche market of radio is defined and differ- tion Gen X stations broadcast alternatives to entiated by programming. You can’t schedule alternative rock. All Strong X stations carry eth- something for everyone and serve anyone well. nic music – from salsa to ska. Unfortunately, this cardinal truth can vanish Four public FM stations have fewer than 10% mysteriously in public radio’s debate about at- Gen Xers in their cumes. (We ignored AM tracting listeners we perceive we don’t have because that band is a barrier to attracting now, or don’t have in sufficient numbers. younger listeners.) That left WMFE Orlando, WQED Pittsburgh, KUSC Los Angeles, and In our industry and elsewhere, Gen Xers have WAMC Albany – the Weak X stations. been generalized into one demographic lump. But they are no more all alike than they are With one exception, classical music prevails space aliens. at the Weak X stations. WQED and KUSC air mostly classical music, while WMFE’s format is AUDIENCE 98 returns to radio’s fundamentals by NPR news and classical. WAMC – with a pas- demonstrating that Gen X listeners – like public tiche of programming that includes NPR news, radio’s overall audience – differ from each classical, other music, local talk, children’s pro- other, depending on the appeal of the programming, and syndicated public affairs – has gramming to which they listen. no dominant format, as well as no appreciable X Marks The Spots Gen X audience. In evidence are the cases of stations with the One hundred public stations with sizable Gen most and the fewest Gen Xers in their weekly X Arbitron samples are arrayed above by the audiences. number of Gen Xers in their cumes and the concentration of Gen X listeners in their audience. In the first group are four stations with the biggest Gen X cumes, all with NPR-style news and information formats: WBEZ Chicago, Gen X Listening By Station WBUR Boston, WAMU Washington, and KQED San WBEZ 100,000 Francisco. These stations, KQED with Gen X cumes of 75,000 90,000 WBUR or more, we dubbed Big X 80,000 WAMU Big X stations. 70,000 Weak 60,000 Four stations have 40% or X Strong X 50,000 more Gen Xers in their au- KUSC diences. As it happens, they 40,000 WRAS 30,000 WMFE are not among the system’s KCMU largest cume stations: KCMU 20,000 WAMC KSJV 10,000 Seattle, WDBM East Lan- WQED WDBM sing, WRAS Atlanta, and Cume) (Weekly Listeners X Gen of # 0 KSJV Fresno. With the ex- 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% ception of bilingual Latino Appeal to Generation X Listeners (Percent of Cume in Gen X) KSJV, these high concentra-

AUDIENCE 98 43 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Big X, Strong X, Weak X Slightly over half are Actualizers, with the rest scattered among various VALS 2 types. How- Of the three station groups we studied, ever, nine-in-10 agree that the public radio Gen X listeners to Big X stations are the station they listen to reflects their values – most highly educated. Four-in-10 have ad- whatever those values may be. vanced college degrees. Education, the most powerful predictor of lis- Six-in-10 are Actualizers. Of our three Gen X tening to public radio, is once again the prime groups, listeners to Big X stations are also connection between programming and audi- the most likely to be in their public station’s ence. core audience. Gen X listeners to Strong X stations don’t look At classical-dominated Weak X stations, Gen as much like public radio’s overall audience Xers are mostly college graduates, though they because are less likely to have advanced degrees than the programming aired on Strong X stations Big X listeners. A third are Actualizers. Another doesn’t have the same education-level ap- three-in-10 are Experiencers, characterized as peal. young, variety-seeking experimenters who sa- vor the new and abandon it just as quickly. It also doesn’t sound like the programming that Unsurprisingly then, most of 21 million public radio listeners tune to each week. Gen X listeners to Weak X stations are the most radio-active and radio-reliant of the As these cases demonstrate, the number and three Gen X groups. They use more sta- concentration of Gen Xers tuned to any particu- tions, tune in on more occasions and listen lar station depend on the programming aired. for slightly shorter durations. That’s hardly paranormal: Programming causes audience – whether that audience They are also the least likely of the Gen X groups is Gen Xers, Baby Boomers, or any other to be in their public station’s core. group broadly defined by a single characteris- The greatest contrast among Gen X listen- tic like age. Each group slices into smaller seg- ers is found at Strong X stations. ments according to programming appeal. Among our three groups, these are the young- Those who suggest that public radio doesn’t est Gen Xers tuned to public radio, and the least draw younger listeners with its current program- educated. ming are wrong. Public radio, right now, counts millions of Xers of the educated kind in its Slightly less than half of the Gen X listen- weekly audience. The truth is out there. ers to Strong X stations are not college graduates. – Special Agent Peters

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 44 AUDIENCE 98 Public Radio’s Generation X Audience I Am Not A Slacker

There are a lot of people interested in my age radio is unique and we won’t find its equal group, the so-called Generation X. It seems like on commercial stations. everyone, from product marketers to demog- Some people in our industry assume that do- raphers to program directors wants to pigeon- ing more stories about Generation X, or playing hole who we are. the Smashing Pumpkins, will result in an influx We’re supposedly cynical, unresponsive, politi- of younger listeners. cally apathetic, vidiots. They say we’re leeches That’s not only flawed thinking, it’s pretty insult- who live with and off of our parents; are bored ing too. by anything not about us; have an attention span of 30 seconds; and are MTV and Howard I’m just as interested in the General Motors la- Stern junkies. The list goes on and none of it is bor struggle and what’s happening in Kosovo positive. as your other listeners. I even enjoy the news from Lake Wobegon. And I like my Morning This is not me. These are not public radio’s Edition, Marketplace and Car Talk just fine the Gen X listeners. We are not slackers! way they are. AUDIENCE 98 shows us that public radio’s Gen The best way to serve Gen X listeners, as Xers aren’t all that different from our par- with all listeners, is to give us the best pro- ents or any other generation of listeners. gramming possible. Programs created “just We too are well-educated and share the same for us” effectively tell us that we aren’t ready for social and cultural values – the two character- grown-up radio. And they also tell your other istics that predict anyone’s attraction to public listeners to go away. radio. Okay, so we don’t make as much money as Baby Boomers but give us time and we’ll Public radio, we love you – so I hope you don’t get there. mind a little advice from one satisfied Gen X listener: AUDIENCE 98 also tells us that three-in-four Gen X listeners say they’re listening to public n You’ve already got us – not all of us, but radio more in the last few years. That’s what those of us who share the education and I find among my own friends. Not only are they values of your older listeners. listening more, they’re also referencing public n Remember that we tune in now for a ser- radio in conversations. It’s an important infor- vice we can’t find anywhere else. mation source in their lives. Stick with what you’re doing and make it even As supported by AUDIENCE 98’s data, the better, and we Gen Xers will stick with you. majority of us know that the news on public – Ingrid Lakey

AUDIENCE 98 45 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Public Radio’s Generation X Audience I Want My NPR

Editor’s note: We asked this report’s Gen Xers – radio was activism. Now it is for me too. Core Team member Jay Youngclaus and Associate Ingrid Lakey – to tell their stories of how they came Jay Youngclaus, 29 to public radio. Coincidentally, a large part of the I credit Terry Gross and Fresh Air with making credit goes to Terry Gross. the traditionally unbearable teenage years a little Ingrid Lakey, 27 more enjoyable. For several summers during college, my mother and I commuted together I can’t remember a time when public radio to Boston, sharing the confined car space for wasn’t a part of my life. I was born the same over an hour each way. It’s not what most young week that All Things Considered went on the men relish. air. The fact that I know this just about says it all. What format let us to pass the time in peace? Not classic rock or Music of Your Life – but pub- I grew up in Philadelphia where my father lis- lic radio, the perfect medium. tened to WHYY constantly. It was part of the daily ritual of life. I remember the first time that I Fresh Air was always part of the afternoon ride. understood what this thing called public radio Having Terry Gross and her interesting parade meant to him and would come to mean to me. of guests in the car was like having a group of really entertaining friends accompany us home. We were at the beach; I was 12. My dad was very excited about a program called Fresh Air While we didn’t talk much during those long, and an interview by Terry Gross with a waitress hot car rides through rush hour traffic, my about what it was like to be a waitress. I didn’t mother and I shared a great deal. Without say- understand what was so special about this, and ing a word she imparted her delight in “meet- told my dad so. He explained that Fresh Air ing” articulate people with unique backgrounds recognized that every job is important and ev- and experiences – and the joy of a lifetime rela- ery worker has a story to tell. For him, public tionship with public radio.

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 46 AUDIENCE 98 Public Radio’s Generation X Audience Wait ‘Til You’re Old Enough

Just like certain Boomers before them, certain Gen X listeners “grow into” public radio as they Generation X Listeners are educated and mature. Are More Attracted to Public Radio Than Boomers Were At Their Age In fact, public radio serves Gen X listeners a 14 little better than it served Boomers at the 12 same age. Today more than eight percent of Boomers 2007 10 Gen Xers all Gen Xers tune to public radio each week. 1997 If the trend continues, public radio’s reach into 8 ? the Gen X population will exceed 10 percent 6 1997 1987 at the turn of the century and approach 14 4 percent in 10 years Weekly Rating (%) 2 1977 1987 – David Giovannoni 0 Source: Arbitron Nationwide 1977, 1987, 1997; NPR stations

AUDIENCE 98 47 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Public Radio’s Older Audience

Many in our industry are quick to take for The education gap between older listeners and granted our older listeners. Programming that their peers is even greater than for younger lis- serves them is dismissed as a dead end, with teners and their age cohorts. a presumed life expectancy as limited as its Fifteen percent of all Americans in the WWII listeners. generation have earned at least a bachelor’s Concern is often focused on younger listeners, degree. Compare that to 50 percent of public as though the older audience had already out- radio’s WWII audience, and 62 percent of its lived its usefulness. Swing audience. The fact is, not only is public radio important in More pointedly than younger listeners, older the lives of many older listeners, these listen- listeners demonstrate the common denomi- ers are important to the life of public radio. nator of public radio’s appeal – higher education. They Are Prevalent They Are Loyal When we open our collective mike, Older listeners rely more on public radio than nearly half of our adult listeners were born any other cohort of listeners. They are more before or during Franklin Roosevelt’s presi- loyal, listen longer, and most likely to listen on dency. both weekdays and weekends. These are the “Swing” and “World War II” gen- The fact is, older listeners rely heavily on our erations – the parents and grandparents of the service. And because they do, they’re as likely Baby Boomers. Nearly one-quarter were born to give as Baby Boomers, and more apt to between 1933 and 1945, and one-fifth before contribute than Generation X listeners. 1933. Together these groups comprise 39 percent of Here Today, Here Tomorrow public radio’s national adult cume and 44 per- Older listeners’ loyalty and support are assets cent of its AQH audience. that aren’t about to die away. Actuarial tables Classical music programmers know them well: tell us that serving this audience will pay off for They are the substantial majority of the clas- many years to come. sical music audience. One-in-four listeners to Half of today’s 65 year-olds will live to be older a classical piece is between 53 and 65; and one- than 82. Half of today’s 75 year-olds will live to in-three is 65 or older. be older than 86. Given their resources our well- They Are Different educated listeners are likely to live even longer. Thought of another way, Older listeners distinguish themselves from their contemporaries in the same way younger lis- In 2015 half of today’s listeners over 65 teners distinguish themselves from theirs: years-old will still be of this world. They are much better educated. It’s a little too early to worry about format obso-

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 48 AUDIENCE 98 lescence through audience attrition. And it’s more listening, more loyalty, and more life in this certainly premature to jettison classical music audience than many would assume. because younger listeners are currently less Our older listeners plan to be with us for some interested in it – especially since they seem to time. We can plan on that, too. grow into it with age. – David Giovannoni More important, though, is recognizing the pri- – Jay Youngclaus macy of public radio’s older listeners. There’s – Leslie Peters

AUDIENCE 98 49 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Public Radio’s Older Audience Willing and Able To Give

Public radio’s older generation is not only loyal Or it is? in listening, it’s also dependable in giving. Age AUDIENCE 98 doesn’t measure the net worth or is no barrier to climbing the Stairway to personal financial value of the audience. But Given. other sources tell us that older Americans, es- In ascending each of the five steps, older lis- pecially the best educated, own a large portion teners keep pace with Baby Boomers, and of all financial assets – the result of a lifetime of sometimes leave Generation Xers behind. work, earning, and saving that younger groups simply haven’t had. Swing generation listeners are at the peak of their earning power, and their gifts equal those Eventual access to this accumulated wealth is of Boomers. WWII listeners, now mostly retired, what public radio’s nascent planned giving ac- have lower incomes – closer to those of Gen tivities strive to gain. Xers. Still, they are more apt to give than the But these efforts can only succeed if our pro- youngest listeners, whom they lead substan- gramming continues to serve their interests well. tially in reliance on public radio, and personal importance of the service in their lives. – Leslie Peters – David Giovannoni As a group, WWII listeners give smaller gifts – – Jay Youngclaus not a factor of their age but of their ability to afford.

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 50 AUDIENCE 98 Public Radio’s Older Audience The Old Folks At Home

Help! I’ve fallen and I can’t turn off the opera. can hurt ourselves by the incautious seeking of – Public Radio Programmer Humor younger or older listeners. I’ve heard every tasteless senior citizen joke Older persons who share public radio’s values on the planet. I’m even responsible for a few. are already attracted to our programming – and But programming to older listeners is serious it didn’t require tributes to Frank Sinatra, nurs- business. I did it for ten years at WMFE in Or- ing home remotes, or canes and walkers as lando. We did fine, with audience and pledge premiums. fundraising numbers many in similar-sized The best way to serve listeners of any age is markets would envy. But one concern always to provide the best program service possible. dogged our success: That’s because the appeal of public radio pro- Sure, the audience is okay now, but what gramming stems from factors beyond age. happens in 10 years when they’re dead? Education and values are much stronger pre- dictors of listening. Intellectual curiosity knows AUDIENCE 98 reminds us how important public no age boundaries. radio is to older listeners, how important older listeners are to public radio, and just how much I’ll be a geezer (52) in just seven years! I still life they have left. plan to be listening then. I certainly wouldn’t write them off yet. That is, if I can still twiddle the Philco at that terribly advanced age. The parallels between this and the Gen X report are striking – especially the notion that we – Peter Dominowski

AUDIENCE 98 51 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Getting to More with the Concept of Core

If you could pick only one measure of success - Another prime distinction between core and one measure, under your control, that reports your fringe is the number of tune-in occasions. station’s public service and financial stability - it’s On average, core listeners tune in three the number of core listeners in your audience. times more often to public radio each week That’s why the Public Radio Program Directors than the fringe. Association (PRPD) initiated The Core Project. The duration of occasion for each group is about The project challenges stations to grow their the same. core cume by four percent each year, through the year 2000, by focusing on the appeal of their A third, significant way the core defines itself is programming. by listening both weekdays and weekends. What do these savvy programmers know about Two-thirds of the core use public radio dur- the value of core cume? AUDIENCE 98 can ex- ing both parts of the week. Almost half of all plain. people in the fringe listen to public radio only on weekdays, though they are tuning in to Why We Care About Core other stations on weekends. Listeners become part of your core audience That information supports our industry’s focus when they make you their favorite spot on the on improving weekend programming. Getting dial – that is, they spend more time with you listeners to tune in again on Saturdays and than with any other station. Sundays is a strategy to strengthen and in- Like any other relationship, spending time to- crease the core. gether can strengthen ties. Over time, your core What else do we know about these listeners? listeners become your station’s best friends – more apt to stick by you and support you. Almost half of the core are Actualizers, the high income, principle-centered, community activist The concept of core is closely intertwined VALS2 type that makes up about a third of public with loyalty, the measurement which tells you radio’s overall audience. when and how much listeners in your cume are listening to you. Perhaps for this reason core listeners are a bit more apt to be imbued with “a sense of com- The size of your core depends on how well munity” regarding public radio - that is, slightly your programming appeals to your cume lis- more likely than the fringe to consider public teners in the hours they use radio. radio personally important, unique in its news If you consistently inform and entertain in a way and music programming, and in harmony with that reflects their beliefs and values, they’ll turn their own social and cultural values. to you first whenever they flip on the switch. Significantly more than fringe, core listeners are What We Know About Core likely to seek out public radio when they travel or move – signifying it as an important element One way they set themselves apart is the num- in their lives. ber of days they listen to public radio. The personal importance they place on their Core listeners use public radio five days a public radio station, combined with their reliance week on average, twice as many days as on its service and their ability to give, make core fringe listeners. listeners prime supporters.

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 52 AUDIENCE 98 Just under half of core listeners are current more programming that’s highly focused on givers to a public radio station. their beliefs, interests and lifestyles, you create a more powerful schedule that attracts fringe But since just over half are not giving, core’s listeners more often. It may also increase TSL pledge potential is far from exhausted. and personal importance among the non-giv- What We Can Do About More ing core - enough to make them supporters. Core But don’t rely too much on national producers to create those programming magnets. Despite their differences, core and fringe still Half of all listening to public radio is to look a lot alike – and that’s a big advantage local programming. when considering how to convert fringe to core. Useful, too, is the fact that fringe listeners are Eight-in-10 core listeners consider local pro- heavier users of radio, spending about a gramming personally important, as do third more time listening each week than seven out of ten fringe listeners. core listeners. Your success at creating more core listeners If you can serve them better, the fringe may may be determined by a mix of canny national spend more of that time tuned into your public program choices and skillful leadership of your station. They may even make you their favor- local announcers and producers. ite. Because you choose the programming on In many ways core is a proxy measurement for your station, turning fringe into core is some- public service. Your ability to serve your station’s thing you can strongly influence. best friends and most loyalty listeners is re- Remember that most fringe listeners tune in to flected in the concept of core. public radio to hear the programming that’s most The more listeners in your core audience, the popular with the core – like the NPR more effective your public service. The more newsmagazines, A Prairie Home Companion, valued your public service, the more likely your Car Talk and Marketplace. That’s unsurprising station will attract the financial support that will because, as noted, core and fringe have a lot make you - and public radio - a strong force in common. among media, now and in the future. When you “superserve” your core listeners with – Israel Smith

AUDIENCE 98 53 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Getting to More with the Concept of Core The Rotten Core

We know that core listeners are much more Comparing these core listeners on their steps likely to financially support public radio than are up the Stairway to Given proves this. fringe listeners. n The Rotten Core tunes in less frequently, And as the Stairway to Given shows, we know listens four and one-half hours less each why: week, and is significantly less loyal than the Giving Core. n they rely on their public station; n While both are likely to say that public n it is personally important in their lives; radio is important in their lives, those in n and they believe that contributing listen- the Rotten Core are much less likely to ers support it. have a “strong” Sense of Community However, not all core listeners are givers. with public radio. What’s with this “Rotten Core”? n The Rotten Core is also less likely to Although a public station is the favorite of all core possess the proper combined funding listeners, those in the Rotten Core do not rely on beliefs that are associated with giving it as heavily as do those in the Giving Core. to public radio.

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 54 AUDIENCE 98 Stairway to Given Giving Core Rotten Core Fringe (For most-listened-to Public Radio Station)

Percent of Listeners 23 25 52 Percent of Listening 43 36 21 Percent of Givers 68 0 32 Percent of Giving 74 0 26

Steps 1&2 Percent in Core 100 100 0 Reliance Loyalty 77 69 14 on Public Years Listening to Station 12 9 9 Radio Percent with “Strong” Reliance on Public Radio 97 89 7 Percent who listen both Weekdays and Weekends 80 65 30 Occasions (per week) 14 10 4 TSL (HR:MN per week) 17:25 12:56 3:34

Step 3 Percent who agree Personal Public Radio Station is Importance Personally Important 98 93 83 Percent with “Strong” Sense of Community 80 59 43

Step 4 Percent who have Beliefs Funding Associated with Giving Beliefs to Public Radio 41 34 34

Step 5 Average Annual Ability to Household Income $80,000 $58,000 $62,000 Afford

The lesson here is clear: the station is financed, remain key steps that must be taken up the stairway to giving. Being a person’s favorite radio station is a wonderful gauge of service and a key indica- – David Giovannoni tor of one’s propensity to support public radio. – Carla Henry But it is not sufficient to create a giver. – Jay Youngclaus

The importance of the station’s programming Note: The Stairway to Given is explained in detail in listeners’ lives, and their beliefs about how on pages 115-116.

AUDIENCE 98 55 Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Getting to More with the Concept of Core A Matter of Choice

One of the most commonly asked questions lic radio ten or more times each week. But half among programmers is, of all fringe listeners tune in only once or twice per week. How do we turn fringe listeners into core listeners? Occasions turn fringe listeners into core listeners. The answer is simple: It’s the listener’s choice. And your programming Become the station they choose most often decisions directly affect this choice. For in- when they turn on their radios. stance, you can choose to serve the same lis- The tune-in, or “occasion,” is the basis of all ra- tener across the week, or you can choose to dio listening, and it results from the choices you serve some listeners only on the weekend. and your listeners make. The tune-in is the point at which public service begins. It hap- Days Per Week pens when your programming is more compelling than any other station’s. And it hap- Listened to Public Radio pens at the listener’s convenience. 50 What do tune-ins have to do with core and 45 Core 40 fringe? Listeners don’t just happen; individu- 35 Fringe als choose to listen, or not. When they 30 choose your station at least once in a week, 25 20 they enter your fringe. They enter your core 15 when they choose your station’s program- 10 Percent of Listeners Percent ming more than any other’s. 5 0 Their choice is made when they turn on their 1234567 radios. And what they hear is your choice The below graph shows the extreme behavioral The above graph suggests the ability of these difference between public radio’s core and fringe two programming options to move people into listeners. Half of all core listeners tune in to pub- your core and fringe. Two-thirds (67%) of all core listeners tune into Weekly Occasions to their public radio station five or more days Public Radio each week. Compare that to the two-thirds 35 of fringe listeners (62%) who listen only one 30 Core or two days per week. 25 Fringe In sum, choice is what this core and fringe 20 thing is all about. You choose the program-

15 ming; people choose the station. The more appropriate and compelling your choices, the 10

Percent of Listeners more frequently they listen. 5 And that’s how to turn fringe into core. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 – David Giovannoni

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects 56 AUDIENCE 98 4.

The More Things Change...

It’s been 10 years since public radio’s last comprehensive national audience study. In media-years that’s a lifetime; maybe two or three.

Since AUDIENCE 88, information and entertainment options have multiplied exponentially. Cable television puts 60 video channels within remote reach of the average American. Eight-in-10 own a VCR. No development has been more astonishing than the Internet. Ten years ago it was an obscure conduit for academic research. Today its growth is phenomenal. In fact, since AUDIENCE 98’s data were collected, Internet penetration has doubled. It is such a part of life that it’s changing fundamental social concepts. But the Internet is just the latest in a continuum of communications technologies that annihilate distance and physical boundaries. Public radio, through its network news programming, has long been the focus of a “virtually community” and has helped redefine “local” among its audience of self-perceived “global citizens.” And radio still dwarfs the Internet in audience reach. While half of all households has a computer, the average American home has seven radios.

The following three AUDIENCE 98 reports consider some effects of changing media on public radio and its listeners.

AUDIENCE 98 57 The More Things Change... The More Things Change... 58 AUDIENCE 98 A Question of Place

The Carnegie Commission’s poetry that defined loyalty it serves our own audience better public radio 30 years ago waxes eloquent about than our local programming does. the “bedrock of localism.” Yet while all public We might guess that this is, at least in part, a radio stations are local, all public radio program- function of the higher quality of major network ming is not. programming. But we don’t know for sure. Two questions keep emerging as managers wrestle with local programming investments. Personal Importance Do listeners appreciate the geographic Listeners are more likely to consider network localness of programming as much as many programming more important in their lives than of us do? local programming. Do listeners consider it important that their For every five public radio listeners, public radio stations reflect their geographic two consider network programming more communities? personally important than local program- While the answer may vary from station to sta- ming; tion, AUDIENCE 98 finds several clues strongly one considers local programming more suggesting that important; geographic localism is a more compelling and two rate network and local programming concept among many public broadcasters the same. than it is among most listeners. No single statistic tells us this conclusively. But we do see a number of consistent indicators. Which Programming is More Important To Listeners? Listening 50% 42% In terms of sheer hours on the air, local pro- 38% gramming dominates the schedules of most public stations across America. 19% But there’s as much listening to network programming as there is to local – principally to Percent of Listeners of Percent NPR news magazines and a short list of major, 0% nationally distributed shows. Local More Equally Important Network More Important Important Most listening to network programming happens when the available radio audience is at its peak. Individuals’ assessments of programming’s But placement alone does not account for its personal importance are strongly influenced over-contribution to listening. by their listening. For instance, those who The audience’s loyalty to network program- don’t listen to local programming are unlikely to ming is 32%. Compare this to its loyalty of consider it important in their lives. Similarly, 26% to local programming. those who listen heavily are much more likely to consider it important. Public radio’s network programming clearly exerts a stronger pull. On the measure of However, something more than sheer use is

AUDIENCE 98 59 The More Things Change... involved in a listener’s assessment of personal or moving residence. They are also more likely importance. to be givers. That something is “uniqueness.” Given their world view it should come as no surprise that Programming Uniqueness listeners who say network programming is Listeners who consider network program- more important share a stronger “sense of ming more personally important than local community” than do listeners who prefer programming believe strongly that “public local programming. radio’s news is unique, not available on commercial stations.” In other words, But those who say local programming is a person’s use of local programming does more important than network programming not contribute to this sense of community; are not more likely to say “the music on his or her use of national programming public radio is unique....” does. Are listeners telling us that network news is Unfortunately, because of how the questions unique and local music is not? Because the were asked, we do not know from this study questions were not posed this way, this con- whether it is the “news” or the “national” com- clusion is speculative. But it’s quite logical, as ponent of network programming that contributes most listening to network programming is to most to this sense of community. news, and most listening to local programming More Questions Ahead is to music. So – do listeners appreciate the geographic We do know for sure that localness of programming as much as many of the personal importance listeners attribute us do? And do they consider it important that to network programming includes a com- their public radio station reflects its geographic ponent of “uniqueness,” while their assess- community? ment of local programming does not. Not only is network programming generally ”Local” Versus “Community” a stronger audience draw, it is more important in the lives of many more listeners. The definition of what is “local” has changed significantly in 30 years. New communication tech- The personal importance people place on nologies have created the “global village,” bring- network programming transcends their lis- ing the world’s news and culture into our homes tening. They find it unique, and through it as a daily reality. share a virtual community defined by values, beliefs, and interests. Most of public radio’s educated listeners have adapted easily to these changes. They have Given the information at its disposal, become, as Bill Siemering once imagined, “citi- AUDIENCE 98 can find no evidence that lis- zens of the world.” teners feel this way about programming produced locally. For them, “community” has transcended geographic boundaries to mean an association of These findings are clear, but far from the last shared beliefs and interests. word. They offer strong guidance for further research and additional thinking. Listeners with a “sense of community” – a concept introduced in the “Givers” report – feel a – David Giovannoni strong resonance with public radio’s social and – Jay Youngclaus cultural values and seek it out when traveling – Leslie Peters

The More Things Change... 60 AUDIENCE 98 A Question of Place What Do Listeners Think When They Think of “Local” and “National” Programming?

To consider a type of programming important a Most Public Radio Listening Is to person must listen to it. Network News and Local Music Based on listening, “network” almost inevitably equals “news” while “local” is nearly always associated with “music.” Local Network 44% Music News 45%

Network Programming (51%) Local Programming 5% 6% (49%)

The overriding prevalence and power of Morn- A Few Network Programs Generate ing Edition and All Things Considered is shown Most Network Listening below. Network 27% Programming For many listeners these two programs define (51%) ME & not only the network experience, but the public Local ATC Programming radio experience as well. (49%) Local Programming 10 *Car Talk, 49% Shows* Fresh Air, Prairie Home, Marketplace, Talk of the Nation, 300+ 15% Performance Today, Classical 24, Shows BBC World Service, Whad’ya Know, 9% The World

Music, primarily classical and jazz, generates A Few Local Music Formats most listening to locally-produced programming. Generate Most Local Listening Music, not local news, defines the “local” public radio experience for most listeners. 22%

– Jay Youngclaus Classical – Leslie Peters – David Giovannoni Network Jazz 51% 10% Programming

Other Network Programming Music (51%) Non- Local 11% Music Programming 6% (49%)

AUDIENCE 98 61 The More Things Change... A Question of Place A Place In Question

At 7:32, on an ordinary Thursday morning, trag- hood tavern and ward politician have diminished edy forever transformed the wooded, hillside in importance. community of Springfield, Oregon. The shoot- Under the wider umbrella of our signals listening deaths of two students and the injuries to ers who prefer network programming (chiefly another 22 at Thurston High shocked, stunned news) have found social and cultural values that and eventually renewed a town KLCC calls its match their own. The same cannot be said for local community. The stories that were told those who prefer our local programming. would resonate across America and the world. AUDIENCE 98 tells us that listeners who do find That day the place in question was ours. local programming more important listen mostly The events unfolding then and through the fol- to music – and say that music on public radio is lowing week amplified the changing role of lo- not particularly unique. cal service in public radio. While the national AUDIENCE 98 did not ask any specific questions press was flying in, our KLCC volunteer reporter about local news, so we still need to ask: What was already on the scene. We pre-empted our value does local news have in our listeners music programming for a live call-in within four lives? hours of the shooting, to help begin the public process of examination and grief. That brings us to priorities – the second reason localism may not be as important to our audi- To us, this was not just another national trag- ence as it is to us. edy. This is our home, and the people involved are our friends and neighbors. Over almost 30 years the national networks have succeeded in bringing an audience to our We like to think we did our best to serve the radio stations. With resources and efficiencies very pressing and real needs of our audience – unmatched by any station they deliver a qual- that, on this day in May, our local programming ity, consistent product that is preferred by our was personally important in the lives of our lis- listeners. No wonder that our listeners have teners. formed a community of shared values, beliefs Unfortunately, AUDIENCE 98 tells us that, on any and interests around these programs. other day, our listeners are more likely to find We have failed, for the most part, to develop our national programs more important. They an equal local franchise to serve that com- engender more loyalty and a stronger “sense munity of interests. of community” than our local programming. AUDIENCE 98 suggests to me, as a journalist, Why don’t our listeners share the value of lo- that I must acknowledge that my news opera- calism that many of us bring to our jobs? First tion may not be up to the network mode. Other is a difference in mindset. But second is a fail- program directors can make their own assess- ure of priority. ment of their own shops. The definition of “local” has changed over the AUDIENCE 98 also suggests strongly that if our years, both for our listeners and for public radio listeners are to find our local service important, stations. Listeners are now defining themselves we must refine our mission and editorial con- by their shared interests, as signal expansion tent to serve their needs and interests at the is extending our services beyond city, county station level. And spinning discs with personal- and state lines. Our experience of the world has ity may not be enough to accomplish that. grown larger, while the corner store, neighbor-

The More Things Change... 62 AUDIENCE 98 If public radio stations are to survive in a future my service must always match the quality of of increasing globalism, digital transmission and theirs. converging technologies, we must be willing to When your local community needs you will invest in local talent to improve the quality and you be prepared to serve it well? meaning of that which only we can provide – truly local content. Do you have the staff and programming in place to respond to an incident of high, KLCC once considered itself a community ra- local impact? dio station because it tried to serve many communities with a checkerboard of programming. Do we really know what our audience might AUDIENCE 98 tells we already serve a commu- want if we asked them about local service? nity of interests in public radio – one audience AUDIENCE 98 is not the Holy Grail. It can’t tell us with many different needs. whether to add the new network show, or which When this community searched for the infor- local program to develop. But it should serve to mation and support it needed at the time of the remind us that what a program does is more Springfield tragedy, I hope they found in KLCC important than where it comes from. It can a personally important source. But I also know grow a community. they relied heavily on NPR, television, cable – Don Hein news, and two local newspapers. If I want my Program Director, KLCC listeners to consider our programming valuable,

AUDIENCE 98 63 The More Things Change... It Ain’t Net-cessarily So

The amazing growth of the Internet has pro- True, public radio listeners are twice as likely voked two primary responses in our industry. as the general public to use the Internet or sub- Will it compete with public radio? And how can scribe to an on-line service. More say they’ll do we use it to our advantage? so in the future.

AUDIENCE 98 offers an unequivocal answer: Yet even for for public radio’s audience, The Internet has no impact on public radio the Internet is not a universal medium. listening. In fact, half of public radio’s weekly audience Listeners who travel in cyberspace take public does not use the Internet or on-line services radio with them. AUDIENCE 98 finds no evidence at all. that the Internet is supplanting their use of – Michael Arnold public radio’s news, music, and entertainment Program Director, WUNC programming.

The More Things Change... 64 AUDIENCE 98 It Ain’t Net-cessarily So Which Listeners Are Wired?

“The things that you’re li’ble to read in the bible.” You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to use – Ira Gershwin the Internet, but a graduate degree helps. Age and sex are the primary determinants More than two-thirds of your listeners who use of Internet and on-line use among public radio the Internet have a master’s degree or more. listeners. Public radio has, on average, a better educated audience than most media. In years of formal Web surfers tend to be young. Listeners in schooling, web surfers rank near the top. their 20s and early 30s are the most likely to spend time in cyberspace. Nearly two-thirds are wired. More Highly Educated Listeners Are The Most Likely To Use

These young, ultra-wired listeners constitute 100% The Internet And On-Line Services a small portion of most public radio stations’ audiences. 59% 52% Looking for Luddites? Try your older listeners. 47% Listeners born before 1946 steer clear of the 36%

information superhighway – especially if they Internet/On-line 22% Percent Who Use are retired. These older, non-wired listeners constitute 0% HS Some College Some Advanced a significant portion of public radio’s classi- Graduate College Degree Advanced Degree cal music audience. Internet is a guy thing. No matter their age, Actualizers, the VALS type that constitutes more women are less likely than men to spend time than a third of all public radio listeners, like in cyberspace. Sixty percent of your female Internet the most. listeners don’t use Internet or on-line ser- Two-thirds of these well-heeled, take vices at all. In contrast, listening to public radio charge, information seekers are on line – is split fairly evenly between women and men. compared to one-third of the Fulfilleds, public radio’s other dominant VALS group. Men and Younger Listeners Are The Most Likely To Use Actualizers and Experiencers The Internet And On-Line Services Are The Most Likely To Use 100% The Internet And On-Line Services 100% Men 71% Women 61% 58% 47% 63% 45% 58% 31% 22% 38% Internet/On-line Percent Who Use Percent 13% 31% Internet/On-line 0% Who Use Percent Echo/Gen X Baby Boom Swing (52-64) WWII (65+) (12-32) (33-51) 0% Actualizers Experiencers Fulfilleds Other/ Unknown

AUDIENCE 98 65 The More Things Change... Actualizers and Experiencers are the most likely are Experiencers, compared to the 35 percent to be surfin’ and listenin’. Keep in mind, though, who are Actualizers. that only five percent of public radio’s listeners – Michael Arnold

The More Things Change... 66 AUDIENCE 98 It Ain’t Net-cessarily So Minding the Old While Mining the New

Human attention has become the most medium? In our rush to the ‘Net most public valuable commodity on the planet earth. broadcasters have yet to answer these ques- –Michael Flaster tions. The Internet has been likened to the Wild West. Augmenting Service Without law or precedent, its settlers are stak- ing their claims while the land is still up for grabs. AUDIENCE 98 can’t tell you if or how you can win new listeners through the Internet. But it can It’s a weak analogy; the limiting factor is band- help you decide whether web services for cur- width, not territory. But it’s apt in one sense: any rent listeners are worth it. prospector has got to leave the old homestead before he can settle a new one. And therein lies The Internet is like any other medium. It appeals the potential problem. to certain types of people and not to others. Be sure you understand who’s using it. The at- What Does The ‘Net Offer Public tached worksheet will help you estimate the Radio? number of web-enabled people in your audience. The Internet’s efficiency at augmenting Public radio’s business is public service, and the your on-air service will vary given the age and Internet seems too big an opportunity to ignore. sex of your listeners. It makes sense to explore how this new medium might enhance your station’s or your program’s Internet Economics service to the public. How do the economics of supplementing your The key questions are: service via the Internet compare with the eco- Can we extend our service to new audiences nomics of running your station or producing your via the Internet? program? Can we augment our services to existing AUDIENCE 98 doesn’t have the full answer. audiences via the Internet? But you do. And if if so, at what price and with what The comparisons are easy. Begin with what you effect? know. Extending Service Unlike the Internet, radio has a virtually universal reach. Radio is quite effective: a typical Barriers to entering the new medium are insig- public station serves its core listeners 12-15 nificant given its potential reach. But as cable hours per week; even its fringe listeners hear television demonstrates, reach does not trans- three to four hours per week. And radio is ex- late into viewing. Cable offers dozens of chan- traordinarily efficient: the average cost of serv- nels; the Web allows access to millions of pages ing one listener with an hour of programming is from all over the world. Competition is fiercer than only a few pennies. on any electronic medium. Ask your webmaster to generate these num- Even if the Web could deliver your services to bers for your site: How many people are actu- new listeners, what is the true cost? What is the ally using it (cume)? How many are tuned in at true return? And how do its costs and benefits any one time (AQH)? What is their average time compare to those of your current distribution spent with each page (TSL)? What is the gross

AUDIENCE 98 67 The More Things Change... level of consumption in terms of total time spent The Future Outlook with the site per week (listener-hours)? No doubt about it: The Internet is booming, and Take these measures and divide them into the it has the potential to enhance your public ser- full cost of building and maintaining your site. vice in creative and interesting ways. With half How efficient is the Internet in serving your of your listeners wired, you’ve got the access listeners? problem half-solved. What would your on-line numbers have to We now know that time spent in cyberspace is be to match the cost-effectiveness of your not time taken from public radio. That too is good station? news. Streaming audio? Cool. How many people But while the Internet is definitely cool, it doesn’t around the world can you feed it to at one time? deliver anything like our own medium. What fraction of your station’s AQH audience Remember: No site on the planet provides is that? the level of public service you do every day. Taking pledges via your web site? Terrific! Now, Significant audiences – and significant program- divide the cost of that portion of the site into the ming – are yet to approach the standards of number of web-based pledges. What’s it cost- public radio. And given the inherent differences ing you to bag an electronic buck? in the two media, it’s likely to stay that way for a very long time. When you have the answers to these questions, you have the information to assess if the The danger lies not in exploring this new Internet is a viable means of improving your territory; it lies in leaving the old homestead public service. unattended. – David Giovannoni

The More Things Change... 68 AUDIENCE 98 It Ain’t Net-cessarily So How Many of Your Listeners Are Web-Enabled?

The World Wide Web is an intriguing medium any daypart, program, or format for your through which you might reach and serve your station. All you need are the corresponding listeners. And just like any other medium, its Arbitron audience numbers. ability to serve your listeners can only be as- The resulting cume number estimates how sessed if you know how many are web-enabled. many listeners to the daypart, program, or Fill in the blanks below with Arbitron estimates format are web enabled. The resulting AQH to calculate just how many of your listeners number estimates how many web-enabled lis- might take advantage of a service provided on teners will hear any given on-air reference. the web. You can calculate these numbers for – David Giovannoni

Calculate Web-Enabled Cume Demographic Cume Persons Multiplier Cume Persons Who Listen Who Are Web-Enabled Men 12-24 ______.7227 ______Men 25-34 ______.6971 ______Men 35-44 ______.5710 ______Men 45-54 ______.5664 ______Men 55-64 ______.4188 ______Men 65+ ______.2098 ______Women 12-24 ______.6113 ______Women 25-34 ______.5859 ______Women 35-44 ______.4615 ______Women 45-54 ______.4432 ______Women 55-64 ______.2840 ______Women 65+ ______.1306 ______Total Calculate Web-Enabled AQH Demographic AQH Persons Multiplier AQH Persons Who Listen Who Are Web-Enabled Men 12-24 ______.7763 ______Men 25-34 ______.7197 ______Men 35-44 ______.5936 ______Men 45-54 ______.5687 ______Men 55-64 ______.3870 ______Men 65+ ______.2223 ______Women 12-24 ______.6531 ______Women 25-34 ______.5882 ______Women 35-44 ______.5090 ______Women 45-54 ______.4929 ______Women 55-64 ______.3170 ______Women 65+ ______.0951 ______Total

AUDIENCE 98 69 The More Things Change... It Ain’t Net-cessarily So What’s the Buzz About the Internet?

”Just because you’re paranoid among our listeners. doesn’t mean they’re not after you.” – Observed by many, including Kurt Cobain Is your station gaining audience after 7 PM? shortly before he shot himself. Check the persons using radio (PUR) numbers at night and compare them to past books. See A few years ago I was talking with a colleague any increase you can’t attribute to anything but about the Internet. He suggested that increased the Internet theory? use of cyberspace is a boon to public radio. He Are you losing news listeners? Take a look at painted a bright picture of listeners giving up your AudiGraphics. Are Morning Edition and All television at night to browse the Web, listening Things Considered still your schedule’s to our stations while they surf. tentpoles? Is your average loyalty line at the In this scenario the evening dayparts become same level? These are pretty good indicators more important, as public radio’s fortunes rise of whether things have changed much. with those of the Internet. If those data aren’t good enough for you, I’ve heard less optimistic people suggest that AUDIENCE 98 can add to your information. For the Internet is replacing conventional news example, your listeners’ use of the Internet sources, like newspapers, TV and radio. And has not affected the amount of TV they no wonder: that’s the idea you get from reports watch. So you can probably stow that idea about the Internet, including stories on public about surf music. radio. AUDIENCE 98 also tells us that your news listen- Theories like these can have a significant im- ers are more likely to use the Internet than your pact on how we do our jobs. They can lead us music audience – but only by a few percentage to change our programming or our presenta- points. The important thing to remember is tion style. They can cause us to ask ourselves that neither group is listening less to your questions like “Should I start airing a show called station because of time spent in cyberspace. ‘Surf Music’ at night for Web browsers?” Or If you’re fretting about the Internet, you’re not “What do I put in my schedule when the Internet alone. Media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and steals my news audience?” Time-Warner’s Gerald M. Levin are too. It’s easy to go too far in this direction, carried They’ve spent millions of dollars on web de- away by the paranoia about competition and velopment and still can’t find a way to profit enthusiasm about new technologies. from their investments.

While AUDIENCE 98 offers some unique infor- As The New York Times reported, many of these mation about Internet and on-line service use big, traditional media companies are “rushing by public radio’s audience, the fact is, we al- from mass to niche programming,” an approach ready have most of the answers. Just take a that appears to be “whittling away the economic look at the research. underpinnings of their business.” Using Arbitron data and analytic tools like Fortunately, public radio has a niche. And hap- AudiGraphics and the Q-system and T-system, pily, we aren’t supported by advertising revenue, we can check out periodically whether serious which Murdoch, Levin and others see draining changes in listening habits are taking place away as the public is given more media choices.

The More Things Change... 70 AUDIENCE 98 Our bills are paid by listeners who benefit most That’s a buzz about the Internet we need to get and value most highly from our services. going. And it’s an excellent remedy for techno- paranoia. Our best strategy may be to improve these services. – Michael Arnold

AUDIENCE 98 71 The More Things Change... Listening, More or Less

Having a bad day? Wondering whether all the Are you ready for some more good news? hard work is worth it? Don Imus may talk to Cokie, but he’s not steal- AUDIENCE 98 has some good news for you. Your ing your audience. Howard Stern may call him- listeners appreciate your efforts and they’re self the “King of All Media” but he does not rule showing you in a way that counts: public radio’s listeners. They’re listening more. Sure, there are a few people who are listening less to public radio and more to commercial Six out of every 10 listeners say they’re lis- radio. But tening more to public radio today than they were a few years ago. for every one of these listeners, 12 are spending less time with commercial radio With the next three-in-10 you’re earning the same and more time with you. level of listening as in recent years. And just one in that crowd is spending less time with you (only That doesn’t mean your listeners aren’t check- eight percent of your audience, to be precise). ing out Imus, Stern or other commercial personalities. Most public radio listeners – even Though they didn’t tell us directly why they’re those in your core – tune in to other stations listening more, it’s reasonable to assume that during the week. Like a spouse or a lover they it’s something you’re doing. may favor you the most, but they don’t want to Perhaps it’s your more highly-focused for- spend all their time with you. mat. Or the improvements in your on-air So far, worried speculation about wholesale lis- sound. Or maybe the development of hits tener defections is just cocktail party talk. like Car Talk or Marketplace are causing people to listen more. Fears about commercial radio, including mega-groups taking over your market, have Whatever the reasons, your programming and yet to be manifest by listener attitudes and public service have earned your station a larger behavior. role in listeners’ lives. In fact, if there is a discernable trend, it’s that Who’s Listening More? public radio listeners are spending less time with While increased listening comes from nearly all commercial media. segments of the audience, Actualizers are For every listener who says he’s listening more apt to be spending additional time with less to public radio and watching more you. These active, ambitious, intellectually cu- commercial TV, 30 listeners say they’re rious VALS2 personalities make up more than spending less time with commercial TV a third of public radio’s cume. and more time with public radio. Though Actualizers tend to favor news and in- If he watches TV, the typical listener tuning more formation over other programming, to public radio is doing his viewing with public those listening more to public radio are lis- television. tening more to all major formats, including Who’s Listening Less? news, classical music and jazz. Every format is benefiting. Who is that one listener in 10 who says he’s

The More Things Change... 72 AUDIENCE 98 been spending less time with you in the past We do know this: few years? The only factor AUDIENCE 98 can find that is Those listening less are more likely to be re- directly connected to less public radio lis- tired, unemployed, or have no more than a tening is your on-air fund drives. high school education. People who are listening less these days to These attributes fit the descriptions of Strugglers public radio are less likely to stay tuned during and Believers – the VALS types who tend to be on-air fund drives and less likely to agree that listening less. As the name suggests, Strugglers on-air drives are easier to listen to than in the are constantly engaged in a fight to make ends past. meet. Believers’ attitudes and lifestyles make If on-air fund drives are driving away the audi- them, in many ways, the opposites of ence, what can you do? Actualizers. Some professionals in our industry are working But this isn’t a big deal: these two groups on the problem right now. You can help by be- combined comprise less than 10 percent of ing open to these new ideas and testing them public radio’s cume. on your air. As AUDIENCE 98 progresses, infor- Why Listen Less? mation about listeners’ attitudes and behavior will inform these experiments. We don’t know exactly what causes people to listen less. Previous studies have identi- If you’re back to having a bad day, you’re miss- fied changes in lifestyle as the primary cul- ing a very important point. prit. Perhaps commercial media’s news and Because you control what you broadcast, entertainment are more attractive to a few you can find a way to give listeners one less folks, especially those outside of public radio’s reason to listen less to you. well-educated appeal. It may be both lifestyle and competition, or neither, and it may not be Or one more reason to listen more. under your control. – Michael Arnold

AUDIENCE 98 73 The More Things Change... Listening, More or Less Changes in Electronic Media Use

Persons in public radio’s audience who are lis- television, than persons who are listening less tening more than a few years ago are using sig- to public radio. nificantly less commercial radio, and more public – David Giovannoni

People Listening MORE To Public Radio People Listening LESS To Public Radio Are Using More Public TV, Cable TV and Internet Are Using More Commercial Radio, Cable TV and Internet And Using Less Commercial Radio and TV And Using Less Public and Commercial TV

60% 55% 60% Commercial Cable Internet/ Radio TV 41% On-line Using 37% 39% 37% Commercial Using 32% More 31% Radio Commercial More TV 17% 12% 9%

0% 0% -4% Using -9% -4% -13% Less Internet/ -14% Public Cable On-line Using TV TV Less -36% -34% Public -42% -51% Commercial -60% -55% TV -60% TV

The More Things Change... 74 AUDIENCE 98 Listening, More or Less Is Public Radio Getting Too Commercial?

Is public radio getting “too commercial”? Listeners’ perceptions of underwriting are largely neutral. The question has been hovering over our industry for most of its history, usually posed by insid- Most listeners don’t think that underwriting is ers and media critics. And it arises naturally when becoming more annoying. Those who do trying to understand why a small fraction of the aren’t listening less because of it. audience is listening less than a few years ago. This doesn’t mean they are unconcerned about AUDIENCE 98 didn’t ask this question. But it did commercialism in public radio. In fact, ask about listeners’ perceptions of public radio half of all listeners who are listening more – and it appears they hear it differently than the than a few years ago are wary that busi- insiders and critics. nesses supporting public radio may force Actualizers and Fulfilleds, the VALS types who changes in the programming. make up the vast majority of our audience, are Despite that caution, motivated strongly by their beliefs and ideals. If public radio is betraying its noncommercial prin- two-thirds say they’re tuning less to commer- ciples, it isn’t evident to them. cial radio and TV and spending more time with public radio. Eight-in-10 say public radio reflects their social and cultural values. Our listeners’ preference for public radio and TV appears to signify the value they place on public Even those who are spending less time listen- service media. Rather than regarding our broad- ing to public radio mostly agree. The secular casts as “too commercial” listeners seem to be church has not abandoned its gospel. using public radio as a refuge from a numbingly But are its hymnals sullied by the taint of adver- commercial world. tising – the “creeping commercialism” in under- – Leslie Peters writing announcements, their increased fre- – Michael Arnold quency within programming?

AUDIENCE 98 75 The More Things Change... The More Things Change... 76 AUDIENCE 98 5.

...The More They Stay the Same

Community radio is largely philosophically unchanged since the days when its own Johnny Appleseed, Lorenzo Milam, distributed money and advice as grubstakes to undeveloped FM territory. To Milam, a 60s-style activist, the airwaves were bereft of art, honesty and free speech. He urged like-minded citizens to apply to the FCC and open outlets “available to anyone who might have that dreadful need to communicate.” And so from the beginning, community radio emphasized the needs of those behind the microphones rather than the needs of the public at large. Despite that operational paradox, community radio’s pioneers sincerely aimed to offer an alternative to mainstream media, especially for America’s minorities and poor. Whether, decades later, community radio has achieved its goals is the subject of this AUDIENCE 98 report.

AUDIENCE 98 77 ...The More They Stay the Same ...The More They Stay the Same 78 AUDIENCE 98 The Importance of Community Radio

For several decades community radio has How Many Are struggled to survive as an “alternative” to com- Black or Hispanic? mercial radio and the network-affiliated public 100% radio system that it pre-dates. Community broadcasters say they offer a different brand of public radio – one largely driven by locally originated programming – that is greatly appreciated by its listeners. 31% 23% Though their numbers are admittedly small, Community 10% these listeners are said to view as vital their Radio Other USA Public Radio community station’s service – and support it as 0% an important resource. Indeed, community radio’s lore is inculcated with stories about stations’ roles as sole carriers of critical commu- How Many Have a nity information, particularly in isolated areas. Bachelor’s Degree or More? Who are community radio’s listeners? What do 100% they say about community radio? How important is it to them? 62% Community Radio’s Audience 54% Community radio listeners are slightly younger, Other slightly less educated, and slightly less afflu- Community Public 23% ent than other public radio listeners. Radio Radio USA With an average $56,000 annual household 0% income and 54% college graduates, community radio listeners look more like other public radio listeners than they do like most Americans. What is the Average Annual There is one difference, however, and that is Household Income? the racial composition of the audience. In mar- $100,000 kets where Arbitron measures race, community radio’s listeners are three times more likely $66,000 to be black or Hispanic than are network-affili- $56,000 ated listeners. Other $48,000 Community Public For the most part, however, these minority lis- Radio Radio teners differ from others only in race; as a USA whole their education levels and incomes are comparable. $0

AUDIENCE 98 79 ...The More They Stay the Same These differences are caused by the programming choices made at community stations – Public Radio Listening no NPR news, little classical music; many Community Radio Other Public more hours of jazz, blues, R&B and alterna- Stations Radio Stations tive rock. 8% Classical 24% 28% Loyalty and Reliance All 31% ME/ Network-affiliated stations elicit more loyalty and 25% Jazz Else Classical ATC reliance from their listeners than community sta- Daily Info tions draw from their listeners. Other Jazz Ent. 7% Other All 9% In fact, one-third of community radio’s listen- Music Music Else 4% ers are part of “the rest of public radio’s audi- 42% 12% 9% ence” and spend most of their public radio listening time tuned to network-affiliated stations. If “loyalty” is a measure of importance, then Giving for these listeners, commuity radio doesn’t measure up: Giving is a proxy for how much a public radio listener values public radio’s service. By this Their average loyalty to community radio is measure, community radio listeners value 18%; to network-affiliated public radio it’s their stations less than other public radio 36%. listeners value theirs. For the other two-thirds of its audience, loyalty By a ratio of 5:4, listeners are more likely to community radio is 22%. to contribute to network-affiliated stations The vast majority of this larger group of listen- than to community stations. ers relies little on community radio. To these Though both groups of listeners believe that listeners, community radio is an alternative – their support is critical and government support to commercial radio. is minimal, those who listen to community radio They spend three-and-one-half times as rely less on its service. As reliance is an essen- many hours listening to commercial radio tial step to giving, they are less apt to financially each week as they do to community radio. support their community stations. Their slightly lower incomes are not the reason they are less Personal Importance likely to give. Would listeners miss their community radio sta- Intentions and Impact tions if they were to go away? Fifty years after its founding, community radio The answer is yes – but no more than net- remains a small component of radio listening in work-affiliated public radio listeners would America. By AUDIENCE 98’s definition of com- miss theirs. munity radio, it provides six percent of pub- Community radio and network-affiliated public lic radio’s national AQH – or about 82,000 radio listeners rate the “personal importance” out of nearly 1,400,000 listeners tuned in at of their respective services virtually the same. any moment to public radio across the country.

...The More They Stay the Same 80 AUDIENCE 98 which supposedly guaranteed the right of Radio Listening in America its citizens to freedom of speech, no matter what their views, there should be free and Other open access to the electronic media as Public Radio Community Radio well.” Pacifica Radio Though execution varies widely from station to station, in a broad sense this is still the mission Commercial articulated by most community broadcasters. Despite those early intentions, community radio, by and large, now serves an overwhelm- Radio ingly white, educated, middle-class, Baby Boomer audience.

This chart represents, in geometric proportions, lis- By the measurements of loyalty, reliance, per- tening to all radio, network-affiliated public radio, sonal importance and giving, it serves many in community radio, and Pacifica. its audience less well than network-affiliated public radio. The majority of its listeners choose About a third of community radio listening is commercial radio much more often than com- concentrated at the five Pacifica stations in San munity radio. Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, New York So while community broadcasters’ sense of and Washington, DC that – for many in our in- mission seems to be as strong as ever, that dustry – define “community radio”. mission and its outcome appear to be at odds. By supplying a mirror built from listener facts, Twenty-four years ago, in his book about the AUDIENCE 98 offers community radio an oppor- early days of Pacifica station WBAI, Steve Post tunity for reflection. wrote: – Leslie Peters “It was the intention of Pacifica’s founders – Jay Youngclaus to develop a radio station that spoke to the – David Giovannoni minority. They believed that in a society

AUDIENCE 98 81 ...The More They Stay the Same The Importance of Community Radio The Majority of the Minorities

AUDIENCE 98 finds that community radio’s lis- Another third is concentrated at the five Paci- teners are three times more likely to be black fica stations. Not only does this reflect or Hispanic than listeners to other public sta- Pacifica’s impact on community radio listening tions. But this singular fact is too simple to ad- in general, it shows the substantial minority au- equately represent reality. dience of WBAI and WPFW in particular. One station – WBGO in Newark – serves In fact, minority composition (the percent of a half of all minorities listening to community station’s audience composed of minorities) radio in the U.S. varies widely from station to station – even in the Pacifica group. Of course, some community stations are Minority Listening heard primarily by minority listeners – to Community Radio particularly if they program in Spanish. But their audiences are small in relation A Few Stations Generate to WBGO’s and Pacifica’s. Most Minority Listening WBGO 61% WBAI 57% The majority of the minorities are con- WPFW 45% centrated at a few stations. Subtract out KPFK 27% WBGO and Pacifica and all remaining KPFA WBGO PACIFICA 25% community stations put together account 5% KPFT for only one-in-five minorities listening to 17% All Others community radio at any given time. All Others 0% 50% 100% Minority Composition – David Giovannoni Varies Across Stations – Leslie Peters – Jay Youngclaus

...The More They Stay the Same 82 AUDIENCE 98 The Importance of Community Radio The Pacifica Difference

In 1999 Pacifica celebrates its 50th anniversary, tion than listeners to other community sta- a remarkable accomplishment given its tumul- tions are to give to theirs. tuous history. As in the past, Pacifica today has Because personal importance of the service is enormous impact on community radio: about the same for Pacifica compared to other One-in-three listeners tuned at any mo- community radio stations, the difference in giv- ment to community radio in America is ing may be explained by the difference in fund- listening to Pacifica. ing beliefs. However, as a group, the five Pacifica stations The critical importance of listener support, in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, New coupled with belief that government fund- York and Washington, DC serve their listeners ing is minimal, is more widespread among no better than community radio in general. Pacifica listeners than among any other segment of the public radio audience. In fact, average loyalty by Pacifica listeners to Pacifica stations is lower (17%) than com- That’s perhaps unsurprising for an organization munity radio listeners’ loyalty to their non- that originated the concept of “listener-spon- Pacifica, community services (22%). sored” radio – as well as that boon and curse of public broadcasting, the on-air pledge drive. Giving is a different story. Pacifica listeners are a third more likely to give to a Pacifica sta- – Leslie Peters – Jay Youngclaus

AUDIENCE 98 83 ...The More They Stay the Same The Importance of Community Radio The Case for Community Radio

With its mission to celebrate the cultural diver- tage Festival, ‘OZ broadcasts live performances sity of New Orleans, WWOZ is an example of a from any of six stages, and then heads to the station whose role is integral to the community clubs from sunset to sunrise for additional live it serves. music pickups. Over 40 dedicated volunteers create programs Past production projects have included spe- expressing their well-informed passion for blues, cial programs on Earl King, Irma Thomas, zydeco, gospel, Irish, Brazilian, Cajun, African, James Booker and two Mardi Gras packages, Latin American, Caribbean, bluegrass, brass one hosted by Dr. John, the other awarded a band, reggae and other various musical styles Golden Reel for its portrayal of the city’s musi- which derive from the confluence of African, cal lifestyle. One production is a 13-part se- Latin, European and American cultures in this ries, “Night Train to New Orleans,” tracking the unique port city. history of New Orleans rhythm and blues through first-hand accounts of independent As such, it is impossible to imagine that the record producers. station’s program service could be duplicated anywhere else, which may be the ultimate mea- WWOZ has created high-school, street acad- sure of its localism. emy, music and college class outreach activities to provide the next generation with an ap- More than just a reflection of the community, preciation of the city’s heritage. It has also WWOZ is deeply involved in the culture: pre- helped improve their technical skills and pro- serving the traditions of New Orleans, while sup- fessional contacts – both essential to cultural porting its rich and complex living heritage continuity and renewal. through the active promotion of current musical activities. An innovative minimal-cost health care clinic for New Orleans musicians could not succeed WWOZ still honors the tradition of local radio without WWOZ, according to the program’s stations providing exposure to local musicians. administrators. Every other hour, the station airs a comprehensive musical event calendar. WWOZ averages Far beyond its mission, this community-licensed three-to-four interviews with musicians daily, station is an essential component of the Cres- and airs four-to-six live musical events per cent City’s cultural eco-system. To quote pia- month from remote performance venues, in- nist Eddie Bo: “WWOZ is the only station in New cluding parks, museums, churches, festival Orleans that takes care of its own.” sites and many of the city’s famous music clubs. – David Freedman During the annual New Orleans Jazz & Heri- Station Manager, WWOZ New Orleans

...The More They Stay the Same 84 AUDIENCE 98 The Importance of Community Radio Re-Examining Public Radio’s Values

The time has come to ask the question: to many people. While this tack runs counter to building a core audience and higher loyalty, re- Does public radio have the responsibility to sponsibility to the many people in these com- ensure that all segments of the American munities has driven our decisions. population are served? But today, two-thirds of Americans have the In the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, public choice of two, three or even four public radio radio’s founders drafted language that encour- stations in a single market. The majority of aged “a source of alternative telecommunica- these stations consciously targets the “NPR tions services for all citizens of the Nation” ad- News audience” – leaving community radio to dressing the needs of “unserved and address the needs of everyone else not well underserved audiences, particularly children served by commercial radio. and minorities.” Community radio wants and needs to do bet- Is this mission still relevant? For community ra- ter, but improvement in loyalty and giving must dio – which perhaps has remained truest to be sought in the context of mission – and with public radio’s original mission – the answer is a the cooperation of the rest of public radio. resounding “yes”. A couple of possible scenarios come to mind: AUDIENCE 98’s data informs us that network-affiliated public radio, in general, is doing a laud- Instead of serving all underserved listeners in able job serving white, middle-class, middle- an area with a few hours here and there for each aged, moderately affluent, educated people. group, a community radio station could choose Community radio – as defined by AUDIENCE 98 one type of underserved listener, and serve – is also, principally and generally, serving this that listener well, all of the time. In effect, that’s population, but with lower average loyalty. what many Native American, Latino and African- American stations are trying to do today. The timing for this information could not be better. At this pivotal moment when public ra- By providing a programming service that ap- dio is moving to a more listener-sensitive peals consistently to the interests and needs of economy, we need to take stock of our val- one type of underserved listener, a community ues. What are our roots? What makes us wor- station may reduce audience size, but substan- thy of public support? What makes us different tially increase listener loyalty – a prime mea- from commercial media? surement of public service. The single most distinguishing characteris- But the ability of a smaller audience of per- tic of public radio is its mission to serve this haps poorer listeners to support the station is country’s underserved. a big question. At what income level does public service disconnect from public sup- If we aren’t doing it well, we need to use what port? AUDIENCE 98, which could only survey we know about radio – and how people use it – today’s public radio listeners, cannot tell us to do better. But it’s a principle that we should about the giving behavior of different types of never abandon. future listeners. In areas where a community station is the only Another scenario concerns the network-affili- public station, we have tried to be many things ated public stations, many of which are seek-

AUDIENCE 98 85 ...The More They Stay the Same ing to establish second services in their mar- radio to pull together; work with this informa- kets, offering a different stream of programming tion; investigate new ideas; and divide respon- to the NPR News audience they already serve. sibility to fulfill the promise envisioned by public radio’s founders – of a radio alternative, free of In the spirit of public radio’s mission, why commercial pressures, offering the best pos- not offer a second service targeted to an sible public service to all Americans. underserved audience? – Carol Pierson Perhaps the greatest opportunity that AUDIENCE NFCB President 98’s report offers is the chance for all of public

...The More They Stay the Same 86 AUDIENCE 98 The Importance of Community Radio What Is Community Radio?

To study a thing first requires a definition. For Of the 413 stations in AUDIENCE 98’s database, the purposes of this AUDIENCE 98 report, “com- 40 met our definition of community radio. They munity radio” is defined as the five Pacifica sta- are: KAZU, KBBF, KBOO, KDHX, KDNA, KHDC, KILI, KKFI, tions and any community licensee station that KMPO, KNNB, KOTO, KPAC, KPCW, KPFA, KPFK, KPFT, generates 80% or more of its listener-hours from KRCL, KSER, KSJV, KTNA, KUVO, KVMR, KXCI, KZUM, locally-originated programming. WBAI, WBGO, WCNY, WDNA, WERU, WICN, WLCH, To be included in this analysis, a station must WMMT, WMNF, WORT, WPFW, WRFG, WVMR, WWOZ, WYEP and WZRU. be mentioned in at least one of the more than 300,000 Arbitron radio listening diaries upon – Leslie Peters which this study is based. – Jay Youngclaus

AUDIENCE 98 87 ...The More They Stay the Same The More Things Change... 76 AUDIENCE 98 6.

Following the Money

For the real scoop behind almost any story, take Deep Throat’s classic advice: Follow the money.

That’s what AUDIENCE 98 does in these next two reports that examine public radio’s listener-sensitive economy. Most giving and underwriting flow into the economy through a small number of conduits – public radio’s major programming. Two channels domi- nate: Morning Edition and All Things Considered together generate almost a third of all listener support and over half of all local underwriting. But that’s only part of the story. By linking listening to giving in a statistically significant way AUDIENCE 98 uncovers a deeper meaning for these numbers. The money trail loops through many aspects of public service and public support, making connections that aren’t obvious in a cursory examination of the public radio economy. Only by following the money can we really understand that economy. And only by acting on what we understand can we influence our financial future.

AUDIENCE 98 89 Following the Money Following the Money 90 AUDIENCE 98 Public Service Begets Public Support

Public radio is nearing a major economic mile- The D-Factor stone. Maybe this year, maybe next, over half of its revenues will come from listener-sensi- The potential for public support lies latent until tive public support – i.e., the people who lis- development professionals convert it into listen to it and the businesses that underwrite it. tener and underwriting income. At that point, public radio will enter a new The effectiveness of this conversion is called phase in its public service economy. It will the D-Factor, with the “D” standing for devel- continue to draw upon a mixture of funding opment effectiveness, development profes- sources, including licensee and tax-based sionals who make it happen, or their ability to subsidies. But unlike today, more than half of deliver on the potential – again you can take its revenues will be listener-sensitive and your pick. under its direct control. When multiplied together, the P- and D-Factors This self-reliance brings to the fore our ability to yield public support. generate public support – actually three skills By linking public support to the programming combined: that causes it, AUDIENCE 98 diagnoses how well 1. Our ability to provide programming of sig- the two factors interact today and suggests how nificance. they might better interact in the future. 2. Our ability to reach a significant listening audience. 3. Our ability to convert public service into revenue – into public support. The P-Factor Our ability to provide significant programming to significant audiences is the definition of “public service” (explained at length in previous Public Support AUDIENCE 98 and other reports). In other words, public service happens when program directors create services that are both heard and valued by their communities. (D-Factor) Development Public Service (P-Factor) We call this the P-Factor – with “P” standing for public service, the programming upon Public support is the product of our public service which it is founded, or the potential that it of- (P-Factor) and the effectiveness of our development fers for development – take your pick. efforts (D-Factor).

AUDIENCE 98 91 Following the Money Public Support of Programming listeners, not only would we provide a greater public service, we’d also earn more support. Listeners gave $140 million to public stations in FY 1997; underwriters gave between $60 mil- Gross Value to Underwriters lion and $75 million. The explanation for music’s lower underwriting Morning Edition and All Things Considered (the support is not as evident, although evidence seven-day shows) generate 34 percent of all points to the D-Factor. listener support ($46 million) and 59 percent of Given their levels of public service, the under- all local underwriting income (between $35 writing potential of local music dayparts is far million and $44 million). Yet they account for only higher than we are realizing today. 27 percent of all listening. Indeed, this potential exists across all dayparts. Compare this to locally produced music pro- Stations currently bill 1.7¢ per listener-hour for gramming, which occupies the bulk of many spots aired in NPR weekday newsmagazines. stations’ schedules. It generates almost twice In contrast, they bill an average of only 0.6¢ for as much listening to public radio as NPR’s all other programming. newsmagazines, yet it yields only slightly more listener support ($48 million) and far less un- If stations’ sales staffs pursued strategies to derwriting revenue ($12-$16 million). underwrite all programming at the same level

WBUR

Listening ME/ Local All ATC Music Else

Giving

Local Under- writing

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Development (D-Factor)

Gross Value to Listeners Public Service (P-Factor)

The explanation for music’s lower listener sup- This graphic shows how the P- and D-Factors inter- port is simple. Local music is less valued than act. Stations are plotted horizontally by a key compo- Morning Edition and All Things Considered. nent of their public service (listener-hours per year). They are plotted vertically by the effectiveness of their Local music generates a lower return per lis- development efforts (financial return per listener- tener-hour (1.1¢ vs. 1.8¢) which, as discussed hour). The larger the box defined by the station’s point, in The Value of Programming, is a proxy for the the greater its public support (in dollars per year). value they place on it. The arrow shows the system average of 2.2¢ per Listeners also consider local music less person- listener-hour – 1.4¢ from listeners, 0.8¢ from under- ally important; that is, they are less likely to say writers. A station’s appearance above the arrow it’s “…an important part of my life; I’d miss it if it suggests a strong D-Factor – i.e., development is went away.” converting public service into public support at a higher rate than the system average; appearance If we could make local music more important to below the arrow indicates a weak D-Factor.

Following the Money 92 AUDIENCE 98 as Morning Edition and All Things Considered, Whether they will deliver on this threat is un- they would more than double their annual gross known. But – like the possibility of global warm- sales – from an estimated systemwide $60-$75 ing – it’s a specter of damage that must be taken million to roughly $140 million. seriously. Such a goal is possible: leading stations per- Programmatic symbiosis offers another ex- form at this level today. Achieving it would have ample of interdependence. Some program- a profound affect on the public service ming survives only because other program- economy: ming exists. For instance, national news generates a financial surplus at most stations. n At $140 million, underwriting would tie lis- Some stations feed the surplus to their local tener income as public radio’s single larg- news endeavors; other stations use it to nour- est source of revenue. ish their music programs. n Even if it costs 20¢ to earn each new dollar, the net could replace public radio’s current As we evolve to meet the challenges of a federal appropriation. harsher media environment, we may have to weigh the benefits of symbiosis against its cost. That’s with no change of programming or in- There are benefits. But unless we manage them crease in listening – just a systemwide – both locally and nationally – extinction may strengthening of the D-Factor as it relates to face programs that cost more than they return underwriting. in public service and support. An Ecological Balance The balance is ours to maintain or lose. The components of the public service economy The responsibility of self-reliance carries with it work together in a delicately balanced ecology. the privilege of self-direction. Many decisions And in such a system, “you can’t change just were made for us in the old subsidized one thing” (as the Zen master once said). economy. Our mature, public service economy Strengthening the D-Factor might involve add- places these decisions – and our future – ing more underwriting spots or airing higher pro- squarely under our control. file messages. Yet givers say they’d be less – David Giovannoni likely to send money if on-air mentions of busi- – Leslie Peters ness support became more annoying. – Jay Youngclaus

AUDIENCE 98 93 Following the Money Public Service, Public Support Financial Maturity

Fed on the milk of tax-based money in its in- n 1990 Individual giving eclipses federal funds fancy, public radio has grown into a more sub- distributed through CPB. stantial and sustainable diet. n 1992 Business support eclipses federal It is most nourished today by the listeners it funds distributed through CPB. serves. Businesses render sustenance as well. n 1994 Audience-sensitive income eclipses all Many parent institutions still contribute to the tax-based subsidies combined and be- welfare of their adolescents; but increasingly comes public radio’s largest revenue they’re asking their offspring to contribute to source. their well being. n c. 1998-9 For the first time audience-sensi- Maturation Milestones tive income generates more than half of public radio’s revenue. n 1988 Tax-based subsidies account for more than half of public radio’s revenues for the – David Giovannoni last time.

Following the Money 94 AUDIENCE 98 The Value of Programming

In studying the relationship between lis- NPR News and Information programming, tener-sensitive income and public service, Car Talk, and PRI’s Marketplace AUDIENCE 98 developed these major concepts: Those findings indicate major ramifications for n The financial value that listeners place on public radio’s public service: public radio’s programming directly reflects n Responsible public service demands maxi- the personal value they place on it, its im- mizing the value of programming to listen- portance in their lives, its significance to ers. Responsible management demands them, its reflection of their own social and balancing the expense of that programming cultural values. against its return. n The financial value that underwriters place n Not every program offering must “pay for on programming reflects their desire to itself;” it can be supported from the surplus reach the people in the audience. generated by other programming. n The gross return that stations realize on pro- Management’s task is to maintain and en- gramming directly reflects the public service hance the station’s public service by balanc- it provides. ing incomes against expenses across the n The net return that stations realize on pro- entire program schedule. gramming is the difference between the in- n The price that national program producers come derived from listeners and underwrit- and distributors can charge stations for pro- ers minus its cost. gramming is firmly rooted not just in its Those concepts are supported by this report’s intrinsic value, but increasingly in the finan- major findings: cial return it offers stations. Listeners place the highest value on news and What is Value? information and the lowest value on locally pro- “Value” is a rich word with many meanings. Here duced music. The simple ranking across all are two: stations is: Financial value is the price someone is willing n NPR News programs – especially Morning to pay for something. Edition and weekday All Things Considered n Car Talk Personal value we know when we encounter it. Because it’s personal it has no universal n Other National Public Radio and Public Ra- definition. However, in the relationship between dio International news, information, and radio programming and the people who listen entertainment programming to it, personal value has much to do with the n Locally produced news and call-in program- sharing of social and cultural values between ming the listener and the programming. n Classical music – locally produced and In public radio the meaning of “value” has be- acquired come muddied as discussions of “value-based n Other locally produced music pricing” have collided with the fundamental and n Underwriters place the highest value on deeply-rooted “mission” values of the industry.

AUDIENCE 98 95 Following the Money Fortunately for public radio, Ask underwriters. They’ll tell you that public radio’s educated audience is difficult to reach the financial value that listeners place on its through other electronic mass media. Public programming is a direct consequence of its radio’s challenge is to balance the right level of personal value in their lives. access to these listeners with the right price for If programming doesn’t share their social and access; again, the motivation being to preserve cultural values, they simply don’t listen. And and enhance its public service. when it resonates most strongly with their in- Ask managers. They’ll tell you their responsi- nermost beliefs and feelings, they find a way to bilities have shifted enormously in the last 15 support it. years. Each year their licensees give less and Simply put, the financial value of program- demand more; their willingness and ability to ming to a listener is the direct result of its operate the station at a “loss” is in general personal value. decline. The amount of money listeners are willing to The manager’s focus has changed from spend- send to a station is relatively independent of their ing a fixed subsidy to a more complex balanc- financial means. ing of listener and underwriting incomes against Listener support is driven by personal value, programming and operational expenses. The not by personal means. balance need not be maintained within any single program; but it does need to be main- Of course people must have the financial means tained across all programming in the station’s before sending money to a radio station; but as schedule. a predictor of support, means pales in comparison to listeners’ satisfaction with the program Taken together, audience support and under- service, its importance in their lives, and the writing are called listener-sensitive income personal value they attach to it. because they are indeed sensitive to listeners. During the last 15 years listener-sensitive The Business of Public Service income has grown from one of the smallest single sources of funding to the largest. As sub- Since its inception as a totally subsidized entity, sidies continue to decline it remains the most public radio has matured into a “public service promising means of paying for public radio into economy” – one that still relies on subsidies, the future. but one that increasingly relies on payment from those who benefit from its service. Value and Significance Squared Public radio has entered into the serious In public radio, value is the amount a listener business of public service. Without valued will voluntarily pay to hear an hour of program- programming, it goes out of business. Without ming. Value is also the price an underwriter good business sense, it won’t have the money places on reaching that listener. to support programming worth valuing. The value that listeners and underwriters place Ask listeners. They’ll tell you that public radio on programming, in combination with the offers some of the finest, most engaging, en- programming’s use in the community it serves, lightening, entertaining, creative, stimulating, squarely determines the financial return on any valuable programming on radio today. programming investment made at public radio To preserve and enhance its service, public stations. radio must convert listening to its program- All other things held equal, a program that’s ming into payment for the programming. important to only one person doesn’t return as

Following the Money 96 AUDIENCE 98 much to a station as a program that’s just as sale of underwriting generates another eight- important to many people. tenths of a cent (.81¢). Licensees and tax-based subsidies at local, state, and national levels The sum total of listener support hinges on make up most of the difference. both the size of the audience and its satisfaction with the programming. What are listeners and underwriters paying for? The basic unit of consumption is one hour Without significant and valued programming, of programming – one person listening for there is no listener support, no matter what the one hour, or one “listener-hour.” audience size. Without a significant audience, there is little listener support, no matter how Listeners and underwriters have vastly differ- valuable the programming may be to a precious ent reasons to pay for that hour. As previously few. discussed, listeners voluntarily pay for programming because they consider it important in their Significant programming for significant audi- lives, because it resonates with their social and ences. Not only is this an appropriate definition cultural values, because they are satisfied with of public service, it is literally the formula for and rely on the programming. calculating listener support Businesses and other institutions have many Programming Economics reasons for underwriting programming. In all but Programming economics offers a means of the purest cases of altruistic philanthropy, un- quantifying the expense, the income, and net derwriters evaluate the quid pro quo – their return of any programming investment. return on their underwriting investment. The expense of programming is usually ap- The amount they pay reflects, among other parent to station managers and program direc- things, their desire to reach the people in the tors, who may find it tempting to base decisions audience, the difficulty of reaching them through on cost alone. other media, the value of association with the programming, and the financial return expected One network’s show may cost more than a simi- from reaching these people. lar show from another network. Spinning a local news story can be far more expensive than AUDIENCE 98 informs public radio’s program- spinning a compact disc. And sometimes it’s ming economics discussions with hard data just cheaper to downlink a free program than it about the listener-sensitive return of specific lo- is to make one. cal formats and national programs and services. This is the first national update of this informa- What is the expense per unit of public service? tion since AUDIENCE 88 made it available 10 What does it cost to serve one listener for one years ago. hour? Some stations spend more, others spend less, Listener-Sensitive Returns – but Local Programming overall, public radio spends about five and The listener-sensitive return on locally produced one-half cents to serve one listener for one programming is much smaller than acquired hour. programming’s. Half (49%) of all public radio listening is to local programming. Yet it generates Who pays for this programming? People in the only 42 percent of all listener support, and a audience voluntarily contribute about a penny mere 25 percent of all underwriting sold locally. and one-half (1.41¢) per hour of listening. The

AUDIENCE 98 97 Following the Money Local Classical Music. Most local program- never be high enough to offset the expense. ming is music played from recordings. Classi- As public radio comes to rely more on listener- cal music is public radio’s primary local format. sensitive support, high-ticket items such as Nationally it generates 22 percent of all listen- these are asked to generate income commen- ing, 20 percent of listener support, and 13 per- surate with their cost. cent of underwriting. It offers the highest return from listeners of any local music (1.25¢) and its To do so they must be placed in prime listening underwriting return is a low .41¢ – typical of lo- time; they must seek to serve the most signifi- cal music programming. cant audience; they must strive to be significant programming – well above the caliber of similar Local Jazz, Blues, AAA. Public stations offer programming available on the station and on many types of music, but Jazz, Blues, and AAA other stations in the market. are the only genres carried broadly enough to examine here. Local Jazz and Blues have ex- Yet it may be that local information efforts will tremely low returns from listeners – at .86¢ never “pay for themselves,” at which point sta- and .71¢ the lowest identified in this study. Lo- tion management is compelled to pay for them cal AAA returns above a penny (1.04¢) but with the “surplus” earned from low-cost music again, the return is low in relation to local Clas- or high-return acquired programming, or with sical and acquired programming. subsidies sought for this specific purpose. Local News and Call-In. Most public stations Management’s task is to maintain and enhance produce little local information programming out- public service by balancing incomes against side of inserts into the national vehicles. How- expenses. ever, the stand-alone News and Call-In pro- The balance need not be maintained within grams tracked in this study offer a very high any single program type; but it does need return from listeners. The formats are evi- to be maintained across all programming in dently more salable than local music as well, the station’s schedule. returning close to 3¢ per listener-hour in listener and underwriting revenues combined (double Listeners and underwriters do not place as high local music’s rate of return). a value on local music as they do on certain national programs or on local information. But Public broadcasters often equate local pro- in no way does this imply that one is “better” duction with serving their communities’ than another. needs and interests. Although highly debat- able when referring to music (what is “local” Choice of programming rests entirely with sta- about Beethoven’s fifth symphony?) it is clearly tion management in service to the licensee’s more applicable to local News and Call-in pro- mission for the station. The information shown gramming. here simply suggests that a station must keep expenses relatively low if it is to support local The high value listeners and underwriters music programming with listener-sensitive in- place on local information programming is come. fortunate for public radio because this is some of the most expensive programming Listener-Sensitive Returns – to do. It is even more expensive to do well. Acquired Programming Does this mean that resources invested in Acquired programming offers a gross return per local News and Call-In programming is well hour of listening twice that of local programming. spent? In terms of significant programming the As with local programming, large differences audience is saying “yes.” But in terms of fiscal exist among acquired programs and program responsibility the answer is not so clear. Be- types. cause even though the return is high, it may

Following the Money 98 AUDIENCE 98 NPR News and Information. Morning Edition writers than does WYK. Overall, each show and weekday All Things Considered generate returns more than two cents per hour of lis- one-quarter (23%) of all listening to public radio tener service. in America. Listeners give nearly one-third NPR Cultural. It would be entirely inappropri- (30%) of their support because of them. And ate to compare Performance Today with Car into them local underwriters pour well over half Talk, even though both are sold in NPR’s Cul- (56%) of their funds. tural package. Performance Today offers 10 They return nearly three and one-half cents (¢) fresh hours of programming per week, Car Talk per hour of listener service. offers only one. Other NPR News and Information programs The per-station shelf space of Performance vary in their listener-sensitive returns. But gen- Today is offset by Car Talk’s nearly universal erally they are somewhat higher than similar carriage, so each generates between one and programming from other sources, and are much two percent of all listening to public radio in higher than programming of most other types. America. The significant exceptions are Car Talk and Listeners place the value of Car Talk at twice PRI’s Marketplace. that of Performance Today (2.65¢ to 1.24¢). For Car Talk and Marketplace. Car Talk and Mar- underwriters that ratio is four to one (.99¢ to ketplace each contributes about one percent .24¢). These two programs serve the public, of all listening to public radio. But they gener- local underwriters, and stations in very different ate listener-sensitive return far beyond this ways. Any comparisons that might be made level. between the two make this point quite clear. Both programs are highly valued by listeners: Asking the Tough Questions Marketplace at a high 1.94¢ per hour of service, and Car Talk at 2.65¢ – the highest level Classical Services Compared. A better com- achieved by any major program. parison would be between Performance Today, Classical 24, and local Classical music. Each has Underwriters pay stations a respectable penny something going for it. Local Classical and Per- per hour of listening to Car Talk, bringing the formance Today each returns 1.25¢ per listener show’s total listener-sensitive yield to a very high per hour of use. Underwriters value local Classi- 3.64¢. cal and Classical 24 at twice the rate of Perfor- Marketplace is in a league of its own with mance Today. underwriters paying stations more than three Local Classical has the highest overall return, cents per listener-hour – twice as much as NPR Classical 24 has the lowest. Which offers the News, nearly four times the system average. best public service? Which is the best buy? Here Marketplace earns the typical station an aver- we arrive at the crux of making decisions. age of five listener-sensitive cents per hour of listening – the highest gross return of any ma- Which offers the best public service? The jor program or format by a large margin. first filters through which any program passes are, of course, its quality and qualities, its fit with A Prairie Home Companion and Whad’Ya the station’s goals and the licensee’s mission, Know. PRI’s premier entertainment programs and other intrinsic characteristics valued by return listener support in the 1.8¢-1.9¢ range public broadcasting. – about the same as Marketplace, lower than Car Talk, somewhat higher than NPR News But given the plethora of programming choices and Information, and much higher than local available to the public broadcaster, the ques- music. PHC gathers more money from under- tion “which offers the best public service” is

AUDIENCE 98 99 Following the Money highly appropriate to public radio’s mission, to turn listeners into supporters, businesses is growing in importance, and is well worth into underwriters. taking the time to ask and answer. Getting back to our example, local Classical Recall that public service is the product of sig- returns 1.66¢ per listener-hour, Performance nificant programming for significant audiences. Today returns 1.48¢, and Classical 24 returns The significance of the programming in lis- 1.21¢. But teners’ lives is reflected by the value they if either of the national programs served place on it. On this count locally produced Clas- twice the number of listeners in the same sical music offers an advantage to the network time slot as local Classical, they would in services. fact generate more income for the station. The other half of the equation – the significance of the audience – is reflected in listening esti- Managers who have purchased AUDIENCE 98 mates. The average audience as reported by Programming Economics reports for their sta- Arbitron is the basis of gross listening. tions have available listener-sensitive return But public radio has more sophisticated mea- estimates for all programs and formats in their sures at its disposal. schedules. Those without this local information can apply the national figures in this Loyalty, core loyalty, and power are more report’s master table to their own assessments appropriate measures of public service, of programming power. and each reflects the significance of the audi- Considering the Cost. The question “which is ence at the time the programming is broadcast. the best buy” isn’t answered until the cost of Several sources of information offer deci- producing or acquiring the programming is sion-makers the means to assess the sig- taken into account. nificance of the audience. They have a di- Managers and programmers tend to signifi- rect means of comparison among programs cantly underestimate the cost of local pro- on their own air. Producers and distributors can duction, while in the same breath unfairly usually supply information from other stations comparing it to the cost of acquisition. for programs not on their air. If a program is new and without a track record, well, that’s This is not to say the local production is un- where professional experience and instinct warranted – far from it. It is to say that the come in. price tag of local production is higher than many at stations would maintain. Indeed, it is Which is the best buy? This purely financial likely to be several times the cost of acquir- question can be put another way: “Which pro- ing a similar (or superior) product when all is gramming option will yield the greatest net re- said and done. turn?” Net return is the income derived from a programming investment minus its expense. In sum, answering the question, “Which program is the best buy?” requires an honest as- Income from listeners is a direct result of public sessment of the true cost of each option service. Income from underwriters is a direct relative to its listener-sensitive returns. This result of the size, qualities, and “match” of a isn’t so simple when comparing the price of an program’s audience to the underwriters’ target. acquisition to the cost of local production. It is, Of course these listener-sensitive sources however, much easier when comparing similar are highly dependent on a station’s ability acquisitions.

Following the Money 100 AUDIENCE 98 Conclusions It’s not just cost; it’s not just listener support; it’s not just underwriting; it’s not just the size of the The price that national program producers and audience served; it’s all of these and more. distributors can charge stations for programming stands squarely upon its value to station At all levels in public broadcasting, we are be- management. ing called upon to maintain and enhance our public service by balancing listener-sensitive The price that station management is will- incomes against expenses. ing to pay starts with intrinsic programming characteristics – production value, mesh with Programming that may have been possible in mission, and all the qualities we take as given a fully subsidized economy may simply be un- (and never for granted). sustainable in public radio’s hybrid public service economy. Programs that some think of to- These left-brain judgements are augmented by day as “loss leaders” may, in the face of hard the right-brain concerns of fiscal limitations and economic and public service data, prove sim- responsibilities. ply to be “losers.” A program’s financial value to a station is As with most good things in life, the cheapest highly influenced by the value listeners options may not be the best bargains, and the place on it, and to a lesser extent the value most expensive may pay the greatest dividends. underwriters place on its listeners. – David Giovannoni

AUDIENCE 98 101 Following the Money The Value of Programming Maximizing the Public Service Investment

“The next time a producer offers just a few: to give you his two cents worth, tell him it’s not enough” n Is there a music director’s salary to pay? – John Sutton n How much of the program director’s time is The goal of financial analyses is often to maxi- involved? mize profit. While “profit” may be the goal in n The manager’s time? commercial media, it is merely a means to n Are benefits and overhead included? an end in a medium that defines public ser- n What is the true cost of maintaining the vice as its goal. Weighing the cost of program- music library? ming against its return is an appropriate calcu- n Is production involved? lation for the public broadcaster. n Is the cost of equipment depreciation fac- Programming that “costs” the station or the tored in? producer more than it “earns” literally re- moves resources that can could be used for other programming. Underwriting is sensitive to the number and qualities of listeners. The more people in the A listener-hour is the basic unit of radio audience, and the more they are like the people “consumption.” It is the product of the aver- the underwriter wishes to reach, and the more age quarter-hour audience times the number difficult they are to reach through other media, of hours the program is on the air over the time the more the underwriter will pay to reach them period in question. with on-air credits. A station’s cost per listener-hour can be es- Listener support is even more listener-sen- timated by dividing its annual operating cost by sitive. Like underwriting, the more people a sta- its full-week average quarter-hour audience tion serves, the more listener support it is likely times 65.7. to receive. However, the programming that The cost of a program can be estimated by serves these listeners must be important in their dividing its expenses (ideally, both direct and lives. It must be significant. Otherwise, people indirect) by its average quarter-hour audience may listen, but they won’t value it enough to times the number of hours it’s on the air per support it financially. year. In both cases the results are in pennies Listener support is the product of proper listener-hour. gramming significance, or value to the As cheap as spinning disks may seem, the true listener (measured by listener income cost of local music production is a complex is- per listener-hour) times the significance sue. It involves the allocation of many real of the audience, or use by the commu- expenses beyond the host’s salary. To name nity, (measured in listener-hours).

Following the Money 102 AUDIENCE 98 The Value of Programming The Gross Value of Programming to Listeners

The gross value of a program or format to lis- Listeners gave public stations $140 million teners is the amount of money it generates from at last count. NPR news and local classical listener support. music programming generated the bulk of this direct listener support. The table below shows the gross value of programming to listeners in fiscal year 1997 (Oc- – David Giovannoni tober 1996-September 1997). – Jay Youngclaus

Listener Support (in $ millions)

All Programming 140.1

Local Classical 27.4 Other Local Music 20.6 Local News, C all-In, etc. 10.5

NPR Morning Edition 24.8 NPR ATC Weekday 16.2 NPR Weekend News 5.9 NPR Talk/Information 6.6 NPR Performance 6.5

PRI 13.8

Other Acquired 7.9

Sources: Program/Format Listening: Arbitron, Fall 1996; Audience Research Analysis. Program/Format Listener Support: Public Radio Recontact Survey, Spring 1997. Total Listener Support: CPB FY 1997 Public Broadcasting Revenue, Station Financial Survey.

AUDIENCE 98 103 Following the Money The Listener-Sensitive Economic Return

Contribution (as a percent) to All Source Program Type Listener Underwriting Format Listening Support Support

All Public Radio Programming 100% 100% 100%

Locally Produced: 49% 42% 25%

Music 44% 34% 21% Classical 22% 20% 13% Jazz 10% 6% 6% AAA 2% 2% 0% Blues 2% 1% 2% Other Music 7% 6% 1%

Non-Music 6% 7% 4% Call-In 2% 3% 3% News 2% 3% 2% Other Non-Music 2% 2% 0%

Source: Public Radio Recontact Study, Audience Research Analysis, Arbitron 1996

Following the Money 104 AUDIENCE 98 of Public Radio Programming

Return (in Cents per Listener Hour) From

Both Listener- Listeners Underwriting Sensitive Sources

1.41 0.82 2.23

1.19 0.44 1.63

1.10 0.41 1.52 1.25 0.41 1.66 0.86 0.43 1.30 1.04 0.49 1.53 0.71 0.56 1.26 1.14 0.22 1.36

1.88 0.60 2.48 2.04 0.82 2.86 2.35 0.61 2.96 1.29 0.12 1.41

AUDIENCE 98 105 Following the Money The Listener-Sensitive Economic Return

Network Contribution (as a percent) to All Program Type Listener Underwriting Progtram Listening Support Support

Acquired 51% 58% 75%

NPR 36% 43% 65% News 27% 33% 59% Morning Edition 14% 18% 34% ATC Weekday 9% 12% 22% Weekend Edition 3% 3% 3% ATC Weekend 1% 1% 0% Other NPR News 0% 0% 0%

Talk/Information 5% 5% 4% Fresh Air 2% 2% 2% Talk of the Nation 2% 1% 2% Other NPR Talk/Information 1% 1% 0%

Cultural 4% 5% 2% Performance Today 2% 1% 0% Car Talk 1% 2% 2% Other NPR Cultural 1% 1% 0%

PRI 10% 10% 9% Classical 24 2% 1% 1% A Prairie Home Companion 2% 2% 1% BBC World Service 1% 1% 0% Marketplace 1% 1% 4% Whad’ya Know 1% 1% 0% The World 1% 1% 0% Other PRI 3% 3% 2%

Other Acquired 5% 6% 1% Classical 3% 2% 0% Other 3% 4% 0%

Source: Public Radio Recontact Study, Audience Research Analysis, Arbitron 1996

Following the Money 106 AUDIENCE 98 of Public Radio Programming

Return (in Cents per Listener Hour) From

Both Listener- Listeners Underwriting Sensitive Sources

1.62 1.16 2.77

1.70 1.36 3.05 1.75 1.54 3.29 1.75 1.74 3.49 1.78 1.64 3.43 1.71 0.80 2.50 1.47 0.02 1.48 1.55 0.30 1.85

1.39 0.76 2.15 1.75 0.92 2.67 1.09 0.93 2.02 1.25 0.29 1.54

1.72 0.50 2.22 1.24 0.24 1.48 2.65 0.99 3.64 1.27 0.05 1.32

1.43 0.75 2.18 0.80 0.41 1.21 1.90 0.47 2.37 1.06 0.22 1.28 1.94 3.09 5.04 1.86 0.28 2.14 1.42 0.54 1.97 1.39 0.65 2.05

1.44 0.17 1.62 1.00 0.16 1.16 1.88 0.18 2.06

AUDIENCE 98 107 Following the Money The Value of Programming The Gross Value of Programming to Underwriters

Gross value to underwriters is defined as the lion; CPB does not specifically request this fig- local return on programming from support ure from stations in their annual financial reports. (cash and trade) in return for on-air mention. Alone, Morning Edition and ATC (weekday) National underwriting is not included in these generate more than half of all local underwrit- calculations. ing dollars. The table below shows the gross value of pro- – David Giovannoni gramming to local underwriters in fiscal 1997 – Jay Youngclaus (October 1996-September 1997). Underwrit- ing’s total value is estimated at $60 to $75 mil-

Local Underwriting Support Low Estimate High Estimate (in $ millions) (in $ millions)

All Programming 60.0 75.0

Local Classical 7.6 9.5 Other Local Music 4.8 6.1 Local News, Call-In, etc. 2.7 3.4

NPR Morning Edition 20.1 25.2 NPR ATC Weekday 13.1 16.3 NPR Weekend News 2.1 2.6 NPR Talk/Information 2.6 3.3 NPR Performance 1.3 1.6

PRI 5.2 6.5

Other Acquired 0.5 0.7

Sources: Program/Format Listening: Arbitron, Fall 1996; Audience Research Analysis. Program/Format Underwriter Support: Audience 98 Underwriting Survey. Total Underwriter Support: CPB FY 1997 Public Broadcasting Revenue, Station Financial Survey.

Following the Money 108 AUDIENCE 98 The Value of Programming Parsimony

The efficiency of network programming has in a productive, listener-focused context. been recognized since the beginning of broad- For instance, NPR’s news shows are among the casting. Parsimony – the pooling of resources most expensive a station can buy. Yet every dol- to create network programming – not only re- lar a station spends on them returns several duces the unit cost per station, it can signifi- dollars in listener support and local underwriting. cantly enhance the quality of programming. Car Talk and Marketplace are also “expensive” Public service through quality programming programs that generate extensive surpluses for is what public radio is all about. And listeners most stations. say the quality of our network programming is higher – often significantly so – than local Fact is, most major national programs return programming. more to stations than are paid for them. n They are more loyal to network program- The economics vary from station to station, of ming. course. But as a system, public radio pays for its local programming through financial sur- n They consider it more important in their lives. pluses realized on national programming. n They value it more highly. That’s the net result – and power – of parsi- In no way should this reflect poorly on local pro- mony in public radio. gramming efforts. But it reminds us that the source and cost of programming are best kept – David Giovannoni

AUDIENCE 98 109 Following the Money The Value of Programming How We Do It

Public radio stations raise, on average, 0.8¢ p.m. to midnight. The station defines ROS as per listener-hour in underwriting support. We Monday to Sunday, 6:00 a.m. to midnight. more than double that return here at WBUR in WBUR offers underwriters a number of rotation Boston. options, including fixed spots, run-of-program, How do we do it? By not selling drive time run-of-daypart, and run-of-schedule. But prices separately. for the fixed spots and run-of-program packages are steep when compared to run-of-daypart and WBUR’s strategy isn’t tied to our market or au- ROS. The price for a fixed spot in Morning Edi- dience size. It’s based on pricing incentives. As tion on WBUR is three to four times more than a result, we give away little and make every the same spot in a run-of-daypart or ROS pack- daypart pay. age. If WBUR offered underwriting packages for WBUR’s emphasis on selling run-of-daypart Morning Edition and All Things Considered only, and ROS packages spreads our underwriting they’d sell out quickly. That would leave no prime over virtually all programs and dayparts, includ- availabilities to sell – and a lot of unused inven- ing those which underwriters might not other- tory in other dayparts or programs that are less wise buy. desirable to underwriters. It would also make for idle or frustrated salespeople. Underwriters can run announcements during drive times at a lower cost than if they purchased Instead, we’ve made some calculated trade- only peak listening times. And WBUR can build offs. For example, we’re willing to take a Morn- value into its otherwise less desirable programs ing Edition revenue return that’s 0.3¢ per lis- and dayparts for a bigger overall return from tener-hour below the national average in ex- underwriting. It’s a classic win-win outcome for change for getting 2.3¢ above the national both parties. average for Talk of the Nation. Mary Fronk and Kirsten Kalhurst, who manage Most underwriters prefer to run their announce- WBUR’s Corporate Support department, de- ments during fixed times or during drive times. vised our underwriting plan. AUDIENCE 98 has But in WBUR’s experience, the majority will opt dubbed development efforts that exceed expec- for run-of-daypart or run-of-schedule (ROS) tations a station’s “D-Factor”; it’s their creativity when they’re given a good price incentive. and drive that puts power into ours. For purposes of underwriting sales, WBUR de- – Jay Clayton fines its dayparts as 5:00 to 10:00 a.m., 10:00 Marketing Director, WBUR a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 to 8:00 p.m., and 8:00

Following the Money 110 AUDIENCE 98 7.

Audience Volunteers Support

Public radio’s increasing dependence on listener support demands a con- comitant rise in public service, and that keeps us true to public radio’s founding vision. Nearly 30 years ago, industry pioneer Bill Siemering imagined programming that “enriches and gives meaning to the human spirit…[and will] result in a service to listeners which makes them more responsive…responsible citizens of their communities and the world.” When our service achieves these ideals, listeners readily reach for their wallets. Government and institutional support can cloud our vision by man- dating service to their interests – which may not always coincide with the best interests of the listening public. Serving the public is public radio’s reason to be. That listeners help finance us, of their own free will, is remarkable in many ways. Having to earn that support keeps us focused on Bill Siemering’s early vision, and rivets us to the right goals.

In this next chapter, AUDIENCE 98 reconfirms that programming not only causes audience, it also inspires our audience to volunteer support.

AUDIENCE 98 111 Audience Volunteers Support Audience Volunteers Support 112 AUDIENCE 98 Givers

What Turns A Listener portant is whom he thinks pays your bills. Into A Giver? If he believes listeners pay the bills, he’s more likely to contribute. If she thinks gov- You do. ernment grants are limited, she’s more apt You turn listeners into givers by your pro- to give too. gramming choices. If they perceive both realities – that listen- That includes every programming element, ers have a prime responsibility and that gov- from the content and presentation of your na- ernment support is minor – they move up tional and local shows, to your positioning state- yet another step in the giving path. ment and promos, right down to the attitudes of (The previous point is a refinement on AUDIENCE your on-air drives. Everything a listener hears 88.) determines his decision to give. And yes, those listeners must have money Virtually every facet of turning a listener into to spare. a giver is under your control. But this is not rich people’s radio. Most gifts Fact is, we’ve known this since 1985. AUDIENCE come from people whose annual income is 98 confirms with clarity what was first discov- modest to moderately upper middle class. ered by the “Cheap 90” study, enhanced by AUDIENCE 88, and built into the Giving Path. And If you get to this point with a listener, what’s left like any good study, it deepens our understand- is providing an opportunity to pledge. Here’s ing even more. where the catalyst – the on-air pitch or direct mail piece – kicks in. What Did We Verify? If you don’t get to this point, no fundraising tech- To become a giver a person has to listen nique on the planet can pick his pocket or her first. pocketbook. Obvious? Not necessarily. You don’t have to be What Did We Discover? a disaster victim to give to the Red Cross. We learned most of this in 1985 and again in Next, that listener must rely on your 1988. So what else is new in AUDIENCE 98? service. We have a far better sense of what does Speaking consistently to his interests and atti- not cause giving. tudes creates loyalty. He depends on your station for its news and entertainment. It validates When predicting a listener’s decision to his values and resonates with his cultural refer- give, or when explaining a station’s fund ences. It’s part of the soundtrack of his drive success, elimination of what doesn’t existence. matter clears the field of confusion over what does. Your station becomes integral to that listener’s life. We also gained fresh insight into what makes a station “personally important” to a The more years spent listening, the greater the listener. likelihood that listener is to give. But more im-

AUDIENCE 98 113 Audience Volunteers Support The relationship between a giver and a station strength and key to a financially stable future. may be rooted, in part, in a “sense of commu- – Leslie Peters nity.” This concept – ripe for further study – re- – David Giovannoni minds us that public service is our greatest

Audience Volunteers Support 114 AUDIENCE 98 Givers The Stairway to Given

Each step identified in this analysis lifts a lis- The first step is the most important. tener closer to giving. However, some steps are A person must listen. bigger than others. This step alone is bigger than the remaining The steps in this graphic represent the partial steps combined. correlation coefficients of the independent variables (e.g. household income) with the de- The second step is the second largest. pendent variable (current giver status) in a The listener must rely on the programming. probit analysis that differentiates givers from non-givers. AUDIENCE 98 finds several indicators of reliance: occasions (the number of times the sta- n “Listens to the station” means “in the weekly tion is used each week); horizontal hold (the cume.” number of different days per week the station n “Relies on the programming” is the com- is heard); and core (the station is the person’s bination of a listener’s loyalty and years favorite, used more than any other). spent listening to the station. However, a person’s loyalty to public n A factor (from factor analysis), interpreted radio and the number of years he’s been as a listener’s “sense of community,” ac- listening to the station are, in combina- counts for roughly one-third fo the belief that tion, the best indicators of his current re- the station is “personally important.” liance on the programming. n “Funding beliefs” are measured by agreement that listeners support public radio and The third step is the third largest. that government support is minimal. Personal importance is the listener’s n “Ability to afford” is an interpretation of belief that the station is important in his household income. life, and that he would miss it if it went off the air.

AUDIENCE 98’s “sense of community” concept is part- Stairway to Given and-parcel of personal importance. Mathematically it accounts for one-third of the personal importance 5 $ step. 4 Has the Ability to Afford a Gift 3 Holds Certain Funding Beliefs The fourth step is the small- 2 Considers the Station Personally Important est. 1 Relies on the Programming This is the belief that lis- Listens teners support public ra- to Station dio, and that government support is minimal. $

AUDIENCE 98 115 Audience Volunteers Support Once a listener has climbed these four steps, that it does add to his daily existence, and so only then does his ability to afford (as mea- forth. sured by gross household income) come into Funding Beliefs: If you can convince one lis- play – and even then, only in the wealthiest of tener in a household that public radio is listener households. supported and not significantly supported by This is a fine but important point. Most public government dollars, you will likely have a giving radio givers do not live in the wealthiest of house- household. holds. Their willingness to give doesn’t differ Ability to Afford: For income to have the same much from one another until their annual house- effect, the household would need a nearly hold incomes surpass $100,000 – after which $50,000 increase in its annual income. This is their income does positively influence their will- something over which you have no control. ingness to give. Wealthier households are simply an easier touch. Another Way To Look At It No Step Stands Alone Although movement from a listener to a giver is As can be seen, no single factor will easily turn a process, some steps are more important for the average listening household into a giving some listeners than others. We used our model household. But relatively modest changes of listening to ask the question, across some or all of these factors will. If we could just influence one thing, how For instance, increase a person’s loyalty by much would we have to influence it to turn a 10% and his acknowledgement of personal listener into a giver? importance by just a little, and he’ll be a giver The answer lies in the “probability of giving.” The more often than not. If you then make him aware chance that a non-listener is a giver is essen- that public radio is listener supported and tially nil. Indeed, among the sample of listeners not funded solely by government monies he interviewed in the Recontact Survey upon which is extremely likely to become a giver, regardless AUDIENCE 98 is based, the chance that a listener of his ability to afford. lives in a giving household is about 30 percent. That likelihood can be raised above 50 percent Teamwork by effecting any one of these changes. Raising people up to the level of givers requires Reliance: Your programming would have to in- a team effort at stations. crease a person’s loyalty from 40 percent to 70 AUDIENCE 98’s model estimates that program percent. In essence, if you can make your sta- directors get people literally two-thirds of the way tion a person’s favorite, he is much more likely to becoming givers by getting them into the au- to support it. dience and making the program service as reli- Personal Importance: You can turn a listener able and important in their lives as possible. into a likely giver by getting him to “definitely Funding messages delivered in positioning state- agree” that your station is an important part in ments or pledge appeals take listeners most, but his life, and that he would miss it if it went off the not all, of the remaining distance. Raise a per- air. How to do this? By demonstrating to him, in son this far and it simply becomes a matter of positioning messages and appeals in pledge convincing him the gift is affordable. drives, that he is in fact reliant on the station, – David Giovannoni

Audience Volunteers Support 116 AUDIENCE 98 Givers A Sense of Community

As the key to giving, the “personal importance” We were right. of one’s public radio station has locked in like a Some fancy statistical footwork convinces us deadbolt three times – in the “Cheap 90” study, that a listener’s “sense of community” is a sig- AUDIENCE 88, and now in AUDIENCE 98 . nificant component of “personal importance.” When it came to the top again for this report we The outlines of a virtual community map are began to wonder whether personal importance emerging, and they may offer a better route to has a deeper meaning for listeners. the listener’s sensibilities. Could this idea of personal importance in- If givers think of public radio as a community, corporate “a sense of community”? A com- then a fund drive is a barn raising, not the munity bound by shared interests and val- Home Shopping Network. On-air pitching is ues rather than by city limits or county lines? passing the hat, not selling Beanie Babies. A virtual community so real and meaningful Shirts and mugs – still the most popular pre- that its citizens are willing to support it vol- miums – are emblems of membership and untarily? pride in the community, not merchandise ex- As public radio’s career-oriented, college-edu- changed for cash. cated adults relocate repeatedly for advance- “Sense of community” may add dimension ment, they may not stay long enough in one place to the seminal concept of personal impor- to put down roots. But their basic human need tance, and thereby help public radio profes- to bond with others like themselves is still strong. sionals to influence giving, focus fundraising Could public radio provide a portable com- messages, and schedule programming. munity that travels with them? Communication technologies let us choose our That was our theory. neighbors based on their sympathies rather than their proximities. Being connected to other Though listeners weren’t surveyed specifically people by psychological rather than geographi- about this idea, we explored it using informa- cal space isn’t so alien anymore. tion from AUDIENCE 98’s database. Larry Josephson talks about public radio as a Seeking out public radio when they travel or secular church. E. B. White called it “our Ly- move residence; valuing news and music pro- ceum, our Chautauqua, our Minsky’s, and our gramming for its uniqueness; gravitating to it Camelot.” Our exploration gives credence to because it resonates with their “social and cul- these metaphors. For public radio, “a sense of tural values”…. We believed that listeners’ community” is an idea that merits moving from agreement with these questions should be poetic rhetoric to further, serious research. highly reflective of their “sense of community,” and we posited that those deeply imbued with – Leslie Peters this sense would be more likely to give. – David Giovannoni

AUDIENCE 98 117 Audience Volunteers Support Givers The Sign of a Giver

”When you have eliminated the impossible, In AUDIENCE 98’s analysis, neither age, gen- whatever remains, however improbable, der, race, nor level of education offer mean- must be the truth.” ingful clues to giving. – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle If these descriptors fail to prove important, what Finding clues to what makes a giver is one of about behavior? If the basis of giving is pro- public radio’s most popular pastimes. Nearly gramming, does listening to any particular pro- everyone has a theory or two. gram or format forecast a gift? AUDIENCE 98 helps solve this mystery by inves- Some speculate that a news/talk format is po- tigating a number of possible theories. We tentially more lucrative than music. We’re all rounded up the usual suspects in our Holmesian familiar with the claim that classical listeners, hunt for the truth – a wide range of listener at- with fatter wallets, are more apt to give than jazz tributes that, some speculate, weigh significantly users. in the decision to give. AUDIENCE 98 tests – and rejects – all evi- For instance, more than a few armchair de- dence that a person’s listening to certain tectives assume that the characteristics that programs or formats plays any role in the prompt people to listen also predict giving. decision to give. Watch out – that line of inquiry is a dead By eliminating program choices and these per- end. sonal characteristics from the list of specula- Most people in public radio’s audience are bet- tion, we solidify the case for what is true: ter educated than most and share certain inter- If a person listens to public radio, tunes in ests and values that attract them to listen in the regularly, values what he hears, believes he first place. needs to do his share, and has money to So once in the audience, does one degree – give, that person is likely to give some to more or less – make a difference? Are men, you. with more disposal income than women, more This is the evidence that holds up under the disposed to give? Do nest eggs and empty closest statistical scrutiny. It’s compelling, yet nests make it more likely for older people to still…elementary. pledge? Does the color of skin correlate to the color of money? – Leslie Peters – David Giovannoni

Audience Volunteers Support 118 AUDIENCE 98 Givers Four Generations of Givers

People of all ages listen to public radio. The intellectually peripatetic, socially liberal Actualizers and the more conservative, prin- Public Radio’s ciple-centered Fulfilled distinguish public radio AQH Audience by Age listeners from their generational cohorts. 30% 27% Percent of Each Cohort 20% That are Actualizers 17% 15% 50% 44% 9% 8% Public 36%

PercentAQH of 34% Radio Avg. 2% 2% 0.3% 0% 16% 17% 10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s U.S. 12% 10% Audience Age Group Avg. 4%

0% Public radio’s appeal – the magnet that attracts Gen X Baby Boom Swing W.W. II (21-32) (33-51) (52-64) (65+) certain types of people closely to it and repels Public Radio US others – is best reflected in the highly educated nature of its audience.

Percent of Each Cohort Percent of Each Cohort with That are Fulfilleds Bachelor’s Degree or More 50% 47%

75% 68% 68% Public 62% 35% Radio Avg. Public 50% Radio Avg. 26%

19% 16% 18% 27% U.S. 11% U.S. 23% 22% Avg. Avg. 15% 4%

0% Gen X Baby Boom Swing W.W. II 0% Gen X Baby Boom Swing W.W. II (21-32) (33-51) (52-64) (65+) (21-32) (33-51) (52-64) (65+) Public Radio US Public Radio US

Some things, like listening to music, are tied Education and the resources, values, and quite closely to age. for instance, the older our lifestyles it engenders are strongly associated listeners are, the more likely they are to be lis- with VALS’s Actualizers and Fulfilleds. tening to classical music.

AUDIENCE 98 119 Audience Volunteers Support What Percent of Each Cohort’s Public What Percent of Each Cohort Radio Listening is to Classical Music? Listens to Any AM Radio?

50% 75% 45% 67% 63%

35% 51% 43% W.W. II W.W. II Swing (65+) 22% Baby (65+) (52-64) 18% Swing Boom Gen X Baby (52-64) (33-51) (21-32) Gen X Boom (21-32) (33-51)

0% 0%

Public radio broadcasts primarily on the FM Lifetimes of experience explain this. During the band, which is where most listening by all gen- second world war AM was radio; there was no erational cohorts happens today. As the AM FM band to speak of until Viet Nam – the Baby medium ages it imposes an ever-finer filter on Boomer’s war. The Swing generation swung to listening; younger listeners are effectively an AM groove; FM was built on the Baby screened out of the audience. Boomer’s rock & roll.

Audience Volunteers Support 120 AUDIENCE 98 Generational differences are also apparent in – Jay Youngclaus listeners’ climb up the Stairway to Given. – Leslie Peters – David Giovannoni Note: The Stairway to Given is explained in detail on pages 115-116.

Stairway to Given Gen X Baby Boom Swing WWII (For most-listened-to Public Radio Station) Gen Gen

Percent of Listeners 16 45 22 17 Percent of Listening 12 45 24 20 Percent of Givers 9 47 23 21 Percent of Giving 8 49 23 20

Steps 1&2 Percent in Core 38 46 47 46 Reliance Loyalty 29 36 38 40 on Years Listening to Station 5 9 12 14 Public Percent with “Strong” Radio Reliance on Public Radio 37 48 49 51 Percent who listen both Weekdays and Weekends 42 50 58 61 Occasions (per week) 6 7 8 7 TSL (HR:MN per week) 6:18 8:28 9:17 9:47

Step 3 Percent who agree Personal Public Radio Station is Importance Personally Important 87 90 91 90 Percent with “Strong” Sense of Community 50 56 60 59

Step 4 Percent who have Beliefs Funding Associated with Beliefs Giving to Public Radio 35 35 38 35

Step 5 Average Annual Ability Household Income $42,000 $76,000 $75,000 $49,000 to Afford

AUDIENCE 98 121 Audience Volunteers Support Givers Catalyst and Cause: Turning Listeners into Givers

”Two mugs and a pound of coffee for 60 We can lead ourselves astray by forgetting this bucks? You’d have to love the radio – for instance, when we judge programs by the station to go for that deal.” number of pledges they generate during – Focus group comment from a public fundraising week. Phone calls don’t measure radio fringe listener. the importance of a program; they do measure Programming causes audience. And program- a lot of other things, though – everything from ming causes listeners to give. at-home listening to the number of minutes available for pitching. People give because the programming is important in their lives; they would miss it if it went The On-Air Fundraising Partnership research away. shows that most pledge calls are made from listeners’ homes. It is no coincidence that the This basic principle was revealed by the “Cheap programs that generate the greatest number 90” study and confirmed by AUDIENCE 88 and of pledges have the highest levels of at home NPR’s First-Time Giver’s study. It was confirmed listening. during NPR’s financial crisis. It was confirmed when federal funding was threatened. The best pitchers, premiums, and challenge grants tend to be scheduled during the pro- The decision to give is based on a listener’s grams with the greatest opportunity for success. use of and satisfaction with the station’s pro- Some program formats simply lend themselves gramming over time. to on-air fundraising more than others. All of During the course of listening, the person is these factors affect the number of calls gener- exposed to numerous fundraising appeals. At ated during a program. It is a disservice to the some point, the fundraising appeals begin to program, the station, and the audience to resonate. Only when messages about the judge a program by its pledge calls. programming’s significance ring true with Converting listeners into givers begins with people’s perceptions of the station will they be understanding the difference between the converted into givers. catalyst for giving (fundraising methods) and Fundraising efforts offer the catalyst; but the the cause of giving (satisfaction with listener’s relationship with the programming programming). is the cause. Your listeners understand this already. One of This is a critical point. On-air drives, direct mail, the most well educated media audiences knows telemarketing, special events – any one of these better than to buy a sweatshirt for $150. They’d may induce the act of giving, but none of these really have to love the radio station to go for are the reason listeners give. that deal. And those who give do. – John Sutton

Audience Volunteers Support 122 AUDIENCE 98 Givers The Giving Path

Leading listeners to giving is the trip mapped They provide context by communicating out by this body of pitches originally developed how much money comes from listeners, for the On-Air Fundraising Partnership. business, and the government. Messages for Steps One through Four are Step Three: The listener must agree that our about the cause (programming) for giving to need is valid. public radio. These messages demonstrate how listener Messages for Step Five are about the catalyst support results in the programming the lis- (fundraising) that stimulates giving. tener values. All fundraising messages should address at They show how public radio funding works least one of these steps. with money going from the listener to stations to program producers. They explain, Step One: The station must be important in in meaningful ways, why programming is the listener’s life. expensive. This new language reflects the significance Step Four: The listener must accept respon- of personal importance to the giving pro- sibility for helping us meet our needs. cess, as reaffirmed by AUDIENCE 98. These messages evoke the listener’s sense These messages remind the listener about of personal and social responsibility. They the value of public radio – the programs, build on the intellectual and emotional value reports, features and music that resonate the listener places on the station, and his with his values. understanding of public radio funding. In additional to regular pitching, they use Step Five: The listener must act. program excerpts, testimonials, and interviews with public radio personalities to tap These messages facilitate the act of giving, into the listener’s values. helping the listener decide how much to give, when to call, and how and when to Step Two: The listener must be aware of our pay. need for support. Descriptions of pledge levels, premiums, These messages emphasize that listeners challenge grants, and installment programs are our most important and reliable source are all Step Five message. of income. – John Sutton

AUDIENCE 98 123 Audience Volunteers Support Givers Why Stations Succeed and Other Myths

Myths are amazing things. They can offer sat- Myth 3: The rich get richer. This theory holds isfying explanations of the underlying forces that that the stations with the most money have the cause a phenomenon, and yet be dead wrong resources to generate more givers. They prob- about these forces or how they work. ably have bigger development staffs; they probably have more fundraising techniques avail- It’s no myth – it’s fact – that some stations are able. More resources, more givers, more money better than others at turning listeners into giv- – it’s an inevitable upward spiral of success. ers. But many commonly held explanations of this ability are unproven – theories at best, Fact: A station’s operating budget does not myths at worst. This analysis tested five groups explain its ability to turn listeners into givers. of theories, and none survived the rigorous re- Myth 4: The drive to survive. Some stations ality checks that would have raised them above have cushions of support from universities or the level of myths. other institutions. Others, like community licens- Although AUDIENCE 98 identifies certain lis- ees, depend more heavily on listeners and are tener characteristics related to giving, it finds forced to focus on listener support. Although the no station characteristics that explain why need to turn listeners into givers may be more some are better able to convert listeners into keenly felt at these stations, givers. Fact: Neither the type of licensee, nor the ex- Myth 1: Location, location, location. This tent to which a station relies on listener sup- cardinal rule of retailing suggests that stations port, explains its ability to turn listeners into giv- in the largest markets, or in markets with the ers. highest concentrations of potential listeners, Myth 5: Pictures help. Don’t radio operations have an easier time generating givers. Certainly that share development staffs with public tele- location affects the size of their audiences. But vision stations have a competitive edge over when it comes to getting givers much more is other radio stations? at work. Fact: Radio stations held as joint licensees are Fact: Market characteristics do not explain a no better or worse at turning listeners into giv- station’s ability to turn listeners into givers. ers. Myth 2: It’s the format, stupid. Some kinds of There’s one important theory that AUDIENCE 98 programming attract listeners with more edu- does not have the data to test: cation and therefore more money. The theory states that stations offering news or classical Successful stations’ development staffs music have got it made. Those serving less may simply be smarter, more ambitious, and educated, poorer people face a greater struggle more in touch with the values and lifestyles for listener support. of their listeners than the rest. Fact: Format alone does not explain a station’s Myth-in-the-making? Maybe. Only further ability to turn listeners into givers. Givers have research will tell. a wide income range. – Leslie Peters – David Giovannoni

Audience Volunteers Support 124 AUDIENCE 98 Note: None of these station-specific variables is in Boston, Washington). So do many news and classi- the Public Radio Recontact Survey database. We cal stations. So do many community stations. thank Tom Thomas of the Station Resource Group But once the underlying causes of giving are taken for helping us work out these ideas, and CPB for the into account, none of these station characteristics data needed to test them with statistical rigor. matter. The stations that are best at generating giv- Analyzed simply, in purely descriptive terms, many ers are heavily relied upon by their listeners, are more joint licensees do have higher than average listener- important in listeners’ lives, engender a greater sense to-giver conversion rates. So do many stations in of community, and better communicate their reliance large or “dream” markets (Madison, Chapel Hill, on (and the importance of) listener support.

AUDIENCE 98 125 Audience Volunteers Support Giving

How do givers decide how much to give? And above $100,000. But for most listeners, their how can we get them to give more? Those are means are at best a minor consideration in the the two questions that follow once we know what decision of whether or not to give. turns listeners into givers. That said, AUDIENCE 98 validates an observa- As AUDIENCE 98 sees it, giving and gift size are tion most of us make: the intertwined products of a person’s motiva- People who have more money can give tion, mindset, and means. more money. Most of the factors that determine a Hardly a startling revelation, but its implications listener’s decision to give also influence the run deep. If a person’s ability to afford a gift amount given. doesn’t cause him or her to give, yet the size of Motivations and Mindsets the gift is influenced by the financial means available, then Before deciding how much to give, a listener must be ready to give. The Stairway to Given, the motivations and mindsets that cause created in the Givers report, leads a person to giving are independent of a person’s means. a giving state of mind: All listeners, regardless of their incomes, can be motivated and educated to give n To become a giver a person must first listen to public radio. to our station. n The person relies on our program service. Gift Size n The person considers our service important No model can include all of the listener charac- in his or her life. teristics that influence the size of a particular n The person believes that listeners pay the listener’s gift. But for every $10 AUDIENCE 98’s bills and that government grants are limited. model can explain, The first three steps are motivations rooted in n four dollars are influenced by listeners’ the appeal of public radio’s programming. The household incomes (means); only way to encourage listeners to climb n three dollars are influenced by their reliance these three steps is through programming. on the service (motivation); Funding beliefs are mindsets that we can in- n two dollars are influenced by the importance fluence with messages that convey the need of the service in their lives (motivation); for listener support, particularly in light of dimin- n and if they’re Actualizers, they’ll give you an ishing government subsidies. extra buck (mindset). Although sequential steps are implied, only the What does this tell us? first step – listening – has a critical place in the Reliance and personal importance – two pro- order. These motivations and mindsets can gramming-centered motivations in the deci- develop at any time and accumulate until a lis- sion to give – are so powerful that they also tener is ready to give. pervade the decision of how much to give.

Means In fact, half of AUDIENCE 98’s ability to predict The decision to give is made a little sooner gift size is based on these two motivations. among persons with annual household incomes Together they weigh more heavily in the

Audience Volunteers Support 126 AUDIENCE 98 determination of gift size than a person’s finan- But pitches work only for listeners in a giv- cial means. ing state of mind. In sum: n Well-chosen premiums and other induce- ments can offer an opportunity to give more. While a good public service can get a lis- But up-selling works only for listeners who tener to give, a better public service can in- value the program service at a higher level crease the size of his gift. than previously requested or given. Although VALS 2 is a good predictor of whom In other words, appeals, gifts, and other tech- from the general population may listen to pub- niques can trigger a gift; but our program ser- lic radio’s programming, it is not a predictor vice is the indisputable cause of that gift. of who will give. Nor does VALS type predict the amount of money a giver will give. The largest part of every listener dollar is payment for a person’s use, reliance, and AUDIENCE 98 does find that Actualizers come appraisal of your program service. with a 10 percent premium built in. And knowing that Actualizers are over-represented in both And that’s good news because, unlike a listening and giving helps us shape more effec- listener’s income or VALS type, the program tive messages that resonate with their values service is under our control. and beliefs. But control can cut both ways, reducing as well Applying This Knowledge as boosting giving and gift size. Interrupt their program service, or send messages that clash Understanding the most basic motivations, with their reasons for listening, and listeners will means, and mindsets that cause giving and in- have another reason not to give – or another fluence gift size can help us shape and hone reason to give less. messages that encourage every type of listener – David Giovannoni to give – and to give more. – Leslie Peters n Well-targeted pitches, both on-air and off, Note: Statistical details of AUDIENCE 98’s Giving can convince a listener to contribute now. Model can be found on pages 172-175.

AUDIENCE 98 127 Audience Volunteers Support Giving Comparing Givers By Size of Gift

The differences among those who give and dio know the route up the Stairway the best. those who don’t are in sharp focus when viewed – Jay Youngclaus through the lens of our Stairway to Given. Note: The Stairway to Given is explained in detail Those who are the most generous to public ra- on pages 115-116.

Stairway to Given Current Givers Not Current (For most-listened-to Public Radio Station) $100+ $50 to $99 $1 to $49 Givers Don’t GIve

Percent of Listeners 61011 19 54 Percent of Listening 11 16 15 19 39 Percent of Givers 23 37 41 00 Percent of Giving 49 32 19 00

Steps 1&2 Percent in Core 76 71 63 48 37 Reliance Loyalty 62 59 51 39 29 on Years Listening to Station 13 12 12 13 7 Public Percent with “Strong” Radio Reliance on Public Radio 79 74 67 50 37 Step 3 Percent who listen both Personal Weekdays and Weekends 78 72 66 56 41 Importance Occasions (per week) 13 12 10 86 TSL (HR:MN per week) 15:47 14:16 12:32 9:24 6:39 Step 4 Funding Percent who agree Beliefs Public Radio Station is Personally Important 99 95 96 92 81 Step 5 Percent with “Strong” Ability Sense of Community 77 77 71 60 45 to Afford

Percent who have Beliefs Associated with Giving to Public Radio 43 44 39 38 32

Average Annual Household Income $103,000 $89,000 $67,000 $64,000 $58,000

Audience Volunteers Support 128 AUDIENCE 98 Giving On the Occasion of Giving

Public radio listeners earn more money than Every station has listeners who give two, three, those without their high levels of education. Their even four times per year. Many stations also household incomes suggest that many can well have installment plan givers who contribute af- afford to give more than $40 to $60 a year. fordable amounts every month. But when it comes time to write a check or In this sense giving parallels listening. People pick up the phone, listeners probably gauge become core listeners not by listening longer all aspects of their immediate financial situ- each tune-in, but by tuning in more frequently. ation and give what they feel they can afford Similarly, listeners’ giving frequency can de- at that moment. termine whether their annual contributions are large or small. Income is certainly a big part of that, but so is their current checkbook balance and the bills on It may be tough to increase the amount a per- the table. Listeners with the wherewithal to give son perceives he can afford. But by asking sev- $200 may only give $50 because that’s all they eral times per year or by automating regular pay- feel they can afford when they’re asked. ments, we might get a step closer to reconcil- ing affordability with means and increasing Fortunately, the size of the average annual gift. no law states that listeners can give only – David Giovannoni once per year. – John Sutton

AUDIENCE 98 129 Audience Volunteers Support The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives

Make no mistake: listeners do not like on-air To get this work done we should understand fund drives. the links between listeners and their attitudes toward on-air drives. What Listeners Think About On-Air Drives The More Loyal Listeners Are To 100% Public Radio, The More Likely 76% They Are To Keep Listening 59% 48% Just over half of the public radio audience continues to listen during on-air drives. However, The stronger listeners’ connections to public radio, the more likely they are to continue 0% to listen during on-air drives. Listen Less or Drives NOT Drives More Tune Out Easier To Listen To Prevalent A greater proportion of the core (six-in-10) continues to listen than the fringe (less than five-in- But a new and encouraging fact has emerged 10). Likewise, six-in-10 current givers and four- amid criticism of public radio’s on-air fund drives. in-10 non-givers continue to listen. According to AUDIENCE 98, Listeners who perceive that drives are get- More Loyal Listeners ting easier to listen to are very likely to keep Keep Listening During On-Air Drives listening during drives. 100% 64% Percent Who Stay Tuned When: 54% 59% 44% 49% Percent Who Percent Keep ListeningKeep Drives Are Easier To Listen To 79% 0% 0 to 20 21 to 40 41 to 60 61 to 80 81 to 100 Listener Public Radio Loyalty (%) Drives Are NOT 34% Easier To Listeners Think On-Air Drives Are Listen To Becoming More Prevalent 0% 100% We do have to contend with the fact that This is good news, as it strongly suggests that three-fourths of our listeners perceive on- improvements we make in our drives will fur- air drives to be more prevalent than in the ther encourage people to listen to them. past. But since most listeners say that fund drives Even among those who keep listening during are not getting easier to listen to, we have drives, eight-in-10 think drives are more our work cut out for us. prevalent.

Audience Volunteers Support 130 AUDIENCE 98 Listeners with greater financial means are more drives than those with lesser education or fi- likely than others to believe drives are getting nancial means. more prevalent. They are also more likely to Almost half think drives are more prevalent tune out or listen less during drives. Perhaps and no easier to listen to than in the past. their intolerance of on-air drives can be traced Even among those who continue to listen dur- to the additional media options that their greater ing drives, the programming of these drives is incomes afford them. critical. On-Air “Advertising” Is Perceived Are Fund Drives Jeopardizing As More Prevalent Giving? In an interesting convergence of opinions, It could be that changes in sound and content almost two-thirds of the respondents per- during drives may be altering public radio’s ap- ceive both that on-air fund drives and on- peal to its educated audience. air mentions of business support are more Listeners with the most years of formal edu- prevalent than in the past. cation are the most likely to say drives are Public radio’s differentiation from commercial getting harder to listen to. stations may be at risk in the minds of listeners This means our drives must better maintain the who do not distinguish between the prevalence level of intelligence and standards as the proof public radio’s form of “advertising” and the gramming people hear every day. prevalence of advertising on commercial radio stations. Listeners with higher incomes are also more likely to say that fund drives are get- If differentiation from commercial radio is impor- ting more prevalent and that they are get- tant, our ability to turn listeners into givers could ting harder to listen to. be jeopardized. We know that household income does not sig- Pledge Drives Are Not Easier To nificantly predict listeners’ willingness to give or Listen To the size of their gifts. However, could these prevalent attitudes among higher income listen- While four-in-10 public radio listeners think ers be the reason we can’t connect higher in- pledge drives are getting easier to listen to, six- come to giving? in-10 don’t. Those with higher levels of education and higher incomes are less accepting of How Public Radio Might Use These Findings More Educated Listeners Say On-Air Drives Are NOT Easier To Listen To The best and most useful news about on-air fundraising is that those who perceive that 100% drives have become easier to listen to will keep listening. 61% 64% 54% 49% It’s also heartening to note that six-in-10 of our more committed listeners – our core and cur-

To Listen To rent givers – say they don’t tune out or listen Percent Who Say Drives NOT Easier less during drives. They are listening to our 0% drives, and that offers us the opportunity to re- No College Some College More Than quest additional and/or larger gifts. College Graduate College Making drives shorter could be key to minimiz-

AUDIENCE 98 131 Audience Volunteers Support ing tune-out during drives, if we make an ex- away. For them, solicitations for renewals and plicit deal with listeners to give early in exchange additional gifts will need to travel through other for fewer days of fundraising. Remember that media such as mail or phone. each time a person is driven away by a fund We have the talent to create intelligent, appeal- drive, we create an opportunity for that listener ing programming most of the year; can we not to find another station that’s more likeable and apply this talent to improving drives? listenable. – Vicki Staudte No matter how listenable we make on-air Director of Market Research, pitches, there will still be listeners who tune Minnesota Public Radio

Audience Volunteers Support 132 AUDIENCE 98 The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives Triangulating on the Effects of On-Air Drives

We have three points of reference regarding of drives on the average day’s listening. Un- people’s behavior and attitudes about on-air fund fortunately, this analysis of the Arbitron diaries – drives: in fact, Arbitron’s methodology itself – cannot rule out that people leave the cume for whole weeks 1. In focus groups listeners are openly hos- at a time (although it is highly unlikely that they tile. Many claim to tune away during drives. Yet do). they admit that they can’t stay away for long; the programming is simply too unique and too We imposed rigorous statistical controls on the important. day of the week to eliminate any effects of systematic day-to-day bias in the diaries them- 2. Half of our listeners tell AUDIENCE 98 that selves. And while we found weak evidence that they listen less or tune out during their people are less likely to listen (and more likely to station’s on-air fund drives. The question, as listen less) when stations are conducting their posed in the Public Radio Recontact Survey, on-air drives, we also found that probably measures listeners’ attitudes toward drives better than their actual behavior. But the Arbitron diaries are not sensitive enough negative attitudes clearly abound. to show significant listening effects caused by on-air drives. 3. Arbitron diaries offer an independent means of verifying these negative responses – espe- How do we square this finding with the other two cially when it comes to actual listening behavior points in our triangle? during drives. But with their 15-minute granular- n Because it’s a 15 minute measurement, the ity, are diaries sensitive enough to report Arbitron diaries may simply be too coarse to changes in listening? capture five or 10 minute flights away from a To help us find out, nearly 50 licensees operat- station in a drive. If people are indeed leaving more than 80 stations offered information ing for short periods – for example, the length about their on-air drives during the 1997 cal- of a pitch break – and then returning for the endar year. Over 24,000 Arbitron diaries from regularly scheduled programming, Arbitron’s the spring and fall sweeps are included in this methodology does not capture and report it. analysis. n Listeners may be likely to report using a sta- Audience Research Analysis (ARA) merged tion in their diaries even while being fund- these two sets of data into a single database driven to other stations or to “off”. After all, that had the “person-day” as its unit of measure- how often do they get to “vote” for their pub- ment. In other words, the data reports how much lic radio station in the context of an impor- each diary keeper in a station’s weekly cume tant ratings survey? They may be masking listened to the radio each of seven days; whether their own behavior for the “greater good” of or not s/he listened to public radio that day; how their public station. much; and so forth. n The attitudes that drives engender among people may not affect their listening substan- This inquiry is designed to determine the effects tially.

AUDIENCE 98 133 Audience Volunteers Support The key finding is that happening. large scale or extended shifts in listener By triangulating on the question from several behavior do not seem to accompany the techniques, we are confident that listeners are resentment caused by on-air drives. telling us, in very strong terms, that our drives are extracting a significant hidden toll We cannot directly observe the effects of five in terms of public service, public image, and op- or 10 minute flights away from the station in portunity loss. a drive, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t – David Giovannoni

Note: Many thanks to the stations responding with FM, WBUR-FM, WDET-FM, WEKU-FM, WFCR-FM, WGUC-FM, information about their on-air pledge drives in cal- WHYY-FM, WJHU-FM, WKSU-FM, WLRN-FM, WMEA-FM, endar 1997. These Arbitron subscribers and their WMEH-FM, WMEW-FM, WMRA-FM, WMUB-FM, WNIJ-FM, repeaters had sufficient diaries to include in the WNIU-FM, WNKU-FM, WNYC-AM, WNYC-FM, WOI-AM, WOI- analysis: KBAQ-FM, KCFR-FM, KJZZ-FM, KLCC-FM, KNAU- FM, WOSU-FM, WPKT-FM, WRVO-FM, WSHU-FM, WUNC-FM, FM, KPBS-FM, KPFA-FM, KPLU-FM, KQED-FM, KUCV-FM, WUOT-FM, WUWF-FM, WUWM-FM, WVPE-FM, WVPR-FM, KUNR-FM, KUOP-FM, KUOW-FM, KUT-FM, KVNO-FM, WAMU- WVPS-FM, WVTF-FM, WWNO-FM, WXPN-FM, and WYEP-FM.

Audience Volunteers Support 134 AUDIENCE 98 The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives How Many Listeners Are Givers?

At this very moment, one in three persons lis- n Longer drives are needed to reach the non- tening to public radio is a giver. That’s 33 giving audience. A lower concentration of percent of the people listening right now. spots may minimize the perceived intensity (but not necessarily the frequency) of pro- One-in-five persons who listens to public radio grammatic interruptus among givers. during the week is a giver. That’s 20 percent of the people who listen to us in an average week. The precise strategic balance of reach and frequency into giving and non-giving segments, Although these numbers vary from station to as well as the intensity and the resulting sa- station, they strongly indicate the importance lience of the campaign among each giving of defining the target audience before craft- segment, seem to offer a promising area of ing an on-air drive. additional research. Drives to elicit first-time givers can be designed quite differently than drives to elicit additional Doing the Numbers gifts from existing givers. Divide the number of memberships to a station The key is to treat these messages like spots in into its weekly cume and you typically get a num- an advertising campaign. Reach and/or fre- ber between 10 and 20 percent. Say 15 per- quency into one segment or the other – givers cent for round figures. or non-givers – can be optimized through intel- This number isn’t too meaningful, though, as ligent, purposeful scheduling. most gifts are given at the household level. The What Does This Tell Us? Public Radio Recontact Survey’s database tells us: Our own air is a great way to reach givers. One-in-two people in public radio’s weekly Not only can we reach many of them quickly, we cume lives with at least one other public can reach them with a frequency far exceeding radio listener. that with which we can reach non-givers. Assuming that two listeners live in each multi- Our own air is also the best way to reach listener household, the math says that public non-givers. However, non-givers hear mes- radio is heard in three households for every four sages with only half the frequency of givers. listeners in its weekly cume. Put another way, One of the inherent drawbacks to on-air drives an average of one and one-third listeners live as typically implemented is that they reach giv- in a public radio household. Do the math, and ers with a much greater frequency than they that 15 percent turns into 20 percent. Hence reach non-givers. This is undoubtedly a source this statement: of resentment among givers. One-in-five persons (20%) who listens to pub- However, skillful scheduling of on-air messages lic radio during the week lives in a household can focus delivery to one group or the other. currently giving to public radio. n Short drives with a high concentration of AUDIENCE 98 reports that givers listen twice as spots can blast their message into the giv- much as non-givers (because they listen twice ing community quite quickly. as often). Therefore, a giver is much more likely

AUDIENCE 98 135 Audience Volunteers Support than a non-giver to be listening at any time. For every giver who hears anything when you Again, math determines that: open the microphone – a time check, an underwriting credit, a pledge break – two non-giv- One-in-three persons (33%) listening to public ers are also listening. radio right now is a giver. – David Giovannoni

Audience Volunteers Support 136 AUDIENCE 98 The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives Driving Home the Numbers

How does your station compare to others when fundraising in 1997. it comes to time spent pitching? What does this mean? Let’s put it in context. When AUDIENCE 98 asked subscribers to its Stations in our survey are doing fund drives listserv for on-air fund drive information, people roughly one out of every 29 hours that they at more than 80 stations responded. Although are on the air. this may not be a representative sample of the public radio system, these statistics offer an in- The annual extremes range from structive overview of on-air drives. n A low of eight to a high of 42 days of on-air Eight-in-10 stations conducted two or three fundraising. on-air drives in 1997. Some ran only one. One n A low of 112 hours to a high of 555. station did five separate drives. n As few as 1,400 minutes to as many as The average drive on a station was eight days 13,700 minutes of actual pitching per year. long. The average station broadcast pleas The high – 13,700 minutes – is equal to nearly for fees 15 hours a day averaging 19 min- an hour for every day the average American utes of pitching each hour. These totals trans- commutes to work. Gives a new meaning to late into per station averages of about the phrase “pledge drive”, doesn’t it? 21 days, 300 hours, or 5,700 minutes of on-air – Jay Youngclaus

Behind the Numbers: Stations heading networks In each case, respondents reported: (1) dates of all were counted only once so as not to unduly influ- on-air drives in 1997; (2) the length in days of each ence the findings. For example, while Peach State drive; (3) the average number of hours in active Public Radio has 13 stations, Peach State is counted fundraising per day; and (4) the average number of once, not 13 times. minutes pitching per hour.

AUDIENCE 98 137 Audience Volunteers Support The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives Formats and Fund Drives

Does a public station’s format influence its lis- ers differ significantly from music listeners in their teners’ perceptions of fund drives? perceptions of whether fund drives are getting easier to listen to, and that they are more likely One problem with on-air fundraising – and po- to keep listening during a drive. tentially a reason half of all listeners say they listen less during drives – is that a station’s We were wrong – at least about the “significant” sound generally changes. part. In fact, aural alterations can be dramatic for Listeners to classical music are slightly less some stations and formats. Listeners tuning in likely to say they keep listening during fund for Mozart or Miles might be jarred by a sudden drives, but in this sense they really don’t differ switch to pitching and premiums. from news/talk listeners to any practical degree. In fact, news/talk listeners are a bit more But for news/talk stations, the segue is essen- likely to think drives are getting harder to lis- tially from talk about one thing to talk about an- ten to (but again, the difference is practically other. To a listener’s ear the change in sound insignificant). may be less abrupt, particularly if the switch is made by the on-air host of the moment. The conclusion: With less “audio whiplash,” news/talk listeners A station’s format is not a predictor of lis- may be more inclined to listening through an teners’ attitudes or behavior during fund on-air drive than those tuned in to a music drives. format. So now we know. Answers to public radio’s fund That was our theory. drive dilemma are not to be found in formats that are less alienating to the listener’s ear. To test it, AUDIENCE 98 looked at two questions about fund drives on the Public Radio Recon- – Steve Martin tact Survey. We posited that news/talk listen- Program Director, WAMU

Audience Volunteers Support 138 AUDIENCE 98 The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives It Don’t Mean A Thing If Those Pledge Phones Don’t Ring

Some bad habits are harder to break than belies everything VALS2 tells us about them. others. Though lifestyle selects the time of the call, it’s One of the most persistent among public radio the combination of reliance, personal impor- professionals is counting pledges as “votes” for tance, funding beliefs and ability to give – re- the program on the air when the calls are made. flecting overall attitudes toward public radio and the station – that brings listeners to the phone. Even smart people who know better fall into this trap. Lifestyle permitting, a good pitch can stimulate a response. But remember that it’s always the Maybe it’s the endless boredom and fatigue of catalyst, never the cause. When even the best a fund drive that makes us forget the facts. pitches (and pitchers) fail it may be because Maybe it’s coffee nerves or sugar overload. Maybe there’s a “Twinkie Defense” in there one-third of the listeners hearing any par- somewhere. ticular pitch have given already. Maybe it’s because membership software en- If your phones aren’t ringing it may be because courages this kind of specious thinking by build- you’re preaching to the choir. And as the drive ing in reports that count the “votes.” wears on, the choir gets bigger…leaving fewer potential givers to convert. Whatever this habit’s cause, it’s time to exer- cise some self control. AUDIENCE 98 and com- The collateral damage that drives inflict on lis- mon sense remind us why pledge counting teners also increases with each passing day. shouldn’t count in assessing the value of your Because this damage is hidden, the point of programming to listeners. diminishing returns is passed more quickly than many may acknowledge. Listeners become givers, in great part, because they rely on your service. That means Put it all together and you have a mathematical multiple tune-in occasions. argument for shorter drives. On average, givers tune in 11 times a week and The big problem with counting pledges is that listen to some part of six network programs and/ it’s not a harmless parlor game. Decisions or local formats. But most people pledge only based on the ringing of telephones or the un- once during a drive – they don’t “vote” six scientific polling of callers can undermine your times. station’s real value to listeners by focusing on the catalyst and ignoring the true cause. People call when it’s convenient. Remember, these are highly educated people with busy lives. That’s not just a bad habit, it’s a downright dan- The idea that they plan those lives around pledg- ger to public service. ing during their favorite public radio program – Leslie Peters

AUDIENCE 98 139 Audience Volunteers Support The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives Point: Bull’s Eye

This guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, “Doc, my be calculated easily with Arbitron scheduling brother’s crazy, he thinks he’s a chicken.” The software available from the Radio Research doctor says, “Why don’t you turn him in?” The Consortium. guys says, “I would, but I need the eggs.” –Woody Allen, “Annie Hall” As the idea of annual membership fades into the past, some strategists are experimenting On-air pledge drives work. And they work with drives to get additional gifts from listeners fabulously. who have already given. On-air drives work because our own air is in- One-third of the listeners who hear any pitch disputably the best medium through which to are current givers. With smart break schedul- reach potential givers. Our pleas for fees are ing we can pitch additional gifts to an optimal aimed at those who listen to our stations, and number of givers in a minimal number of hours. by definition, the programming that creates an audience offers the best way to reach that au- What About Other Media? dience. We can use the information in our databases We are captives to the efficiency of our own to reach givers through direct mail and medium. And as we increase our reliance on telemarketing. Each medium extracts its own the financial support of listeners, on-air costs, and neither is inexpensive. drives will become an increasingly important part of what we do. Reaching non-givers through these means is far trickier – as any medium besides our own Potential Givers is hit-and-miss, with the emphasis on the latter. On-air drives reach listeners who have com- pleted the climb up the Stairway to Given. They On the other hand, a station’s air is a “free” rely on the station and consider it important in medium – the operating costs of a drive don’t their lives. They believe listeners support it and seem to exceed by much the regular costs of that the government and other institutions are running the station. Both givers and non-givers playing lesser roles. They may never have given are always within earshot. before, but now they’re ready to walk the Giv- ing Path. The Inescapable Fact At most stations a primary objective of on-air On-air drives work because they deliver their drives is to turn these listeners into first-time messages to the right people. They reach their givers. targets so well that they can be done poorly and still make money. Two-thirds of those listening anytime we open the microphone are not givers. With strategic Sure, on-air drives offer much to be concerned scheduling, we can reach a maximum number about. We can and should do them better. of non-givers within a relatively small number But there’s no doubt they’re with us to stay. of hours. We can’t abandon them now. We need the Similarly, the frequency with which a significant eggs. percentage of non-givers may be reached can – David Giovannoni

Audience Volunteers Support 140 AUDIENCE 98 The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives Counterpoint: Collateral Damage

Conducting on-air drives is like trimming toenails Resentment with a shotgun — the method is effective, but not without its side effects. For now, the negative effect of drives on be- –Anonymous havior is short-term. But the more significant, On-air pledge drives work because they deliver long-term collateral damage is in attitude. And their payloads to their target audiences with stra- the attitude is resentment. tegic precision. Our link to listeners – particularly givers and Unfortunately, on-air drives hit more than their those in the core – is through shared values, targets. They hit every listener – giver and non- interests, and beliefs. Our programming creates giver alike. The disruption in programming a psychological community built on trust. causes significant collateral damage, the ex- We bomb that community when we blow up the tent of which is neither well known nor widely sound, quality, and appeal of our service. acknowledged by most public broadcasters. Resentment is the unavoidable fallout. Phones ring and blink in our sights. But each And the greatest casualty of all is opportunity score wounds literally hundreds. loss. Ask them what they think about our campaigns and they can barely contain their emotions. In Unnecessary Casualties focus groups listeners rail against our drives Numerous findings suggest the price we pay without provocation. for firing upon our own:

Why shouldn’t they? Drives make our pro- n Many listeners are not listening to on-air gramming unreliable. They interrupt its ser- drives; public service plunges. vice and undermine its quality, both real and n People who can afford to select their media perceived. alternatives are not as tolerant or forgiving. Even our core listeners and givers – people who n Resentment of drives makes public radio support public radio with their loyalty and money not as important in listeners’ lives. – can’t understand why we’re bombing our ser- n And resentment is strongly linked to not giv- vice in order to save it. ing to public radio. In the Public Radio Recontact Survey half of A growing number of field experiments suggest our listeners say they listen less or tune out that collateral resentment is not an inescapable during drives. These good citizens have no cost of doing business. reason to lie. Pitch breaks send them scurry- ing to the shelter of silence or other stations n They demonstrate that on-air drives can be five to ten minutes at a time until the campaign shortened successfully. ceases. n They offer proof that effective fundraising Fortunately, our regular programming brings from established givers can occur off-air. them back. And why shouldn’t it? It’s what they n And they show that in style, content, and tune in to hear. It’s what they pay to maintain. attitude, breaks can be made more like the programming in which they appear. If they return, why should we be concerned?

AUDIENCE 98 141 Audience Volunteers Support People join our community voluntarily and they The drive that minimizes resentment among support it voluntarily. Common sense says we members of our community may also return the ourselves become better community members greatest financial dividends. That would offer when we adopt strategies that decrease collat- victory on two fronts – each a worthy objective. eral damage. – David Giovannoni

Audience Volunteers Support 142 AUDIENCE 98 The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives Caveat Venditor

The “sense of community” concept suggests an They are drawn to your noncommercial nature. underlying motivation for giving by listeners who They trust that they will find these qualities ev- take their “public radio citizenship” seriously. It ery time they tune in. implies a kind of civic giving that is closely re- Turning your station into the Home Shop- lated to what attracts them to your programming ping Network betrays that trust. in the first place. Everything we know about Actualizers and Civic giving aims to preserve the values and Fulfilleds tells us that they are repulsed by sta- lifestyles that public radio validates for most tus-oriented consumerism. listeners. A parade of unrelated premiums – restaurant This should not be confused with altruistic vouchers, day spa certificates, balloon rides – giving – the notion that people contribute to may cause the phones to ring, but the calls are public radio solely because it’s a public good. probably not coming from the listeners who AUDIENCE 88 tested and disposed of that idea have the deepest relationship with your station. a decade ago. Suddenly you’ve turned their community of If on-air pitches work best when they resonate deeply held values into an infomercial. This with listeners’ beliefs, then civic giving has great would explain why half of them tune out or potential as a catalyst for public radio support. listen less during fund drives. VALS can help shape these pitches, since our listeners’ values and lifestyles strongly reflect Listeners who remain give because they’re get- what it means to be a citizen of public radio. ting a deal on unrelated goods – not because your station is personally important to them. Remember: People’s VALS types do not Perhaps this is why so many new givers are cause them to give. But their VALS charac- increasingly expensive to get and difficult to teristics do help explain why they listen. keep. VALS tells us who’s hearing our fund drives, Treating public radio support as a sales and this is powerful information. transaction may temporarily bolster gross Two-in-three public radio listeners are revenues, but appealing to your listeners’ Actualizers or Fulfilleds. These people are mo- hearts and minds is probably where lasting tivated by principles, and for them posses- commitment and real financial stability lie. sions have little intrinsic importance. They The problem with any on-air pitch is that it works view related premiums – objects with your call for someone. But what are the hidden long-term letters, or logos of their favorite programs – as costs of this short-term fix? emblems of their public radio citizenship. Simi- larly, their subscription to your station symbol- The biggest hidden cost may be the izes their use and shared ideals. Actualizers and Fulfilleds – the potential civic givers – your merchandising repels. Actualizers and Fulfilleds listen to your station for the sound and attitude that’s expressed Let the seller beware. through your editorial and aesthetic sensibilities. – Leslie Peters

AUDIENCE 98 143 Audience Volunteers Support The Effect of On-Air Pledge Drives Where Do We Go From Here?

Half of our listeners say they listen less during How do we do that? Let’s consider the obvious. fund drives. Whether they do or not, their re- n Make your drives sound more like your regu- sentment of on-air drives is not good news, lar programming by using your station’s on- and it supports what we’ve heard anecdotally air personalities for pitches. As NPR’s First- and suspected for years. Time Givers Study confirms, listeners re- We would do well to accept this finding as a spond best to familiar voices. ringing wake up call, and respond as we did n Aircheck regularly during the drive and give a few years ago when Congress threatened feedback to everyone. Use the same qual- to eliminate funding for public broadcast- ity standards for drives as any other pro- ing. That crisis unleashed enormous creative gramming. energy throughout the public radio system. n Keep the audience tuned through a pitch This new information from AUDIENCE 98 can through effective forward promotion of regu- do the same. larly scheduled programming. Can we expect to eliminate fund drives? Not n Make your pitch breaks entertaining. likely. But as we look at more off air strategies, n Keep the pace and overall sound of your we also need to improve profoundly what we station as consistent as possible during a do on the air. drive. Watch for that audio whiplash! Because on-air fundraising is programming, the n Use all the tools available to you. There is principle responsibility for improving its quality much to learn about listeners and their mo- lies with the program director. When listeners tivation for giving in AUDIENCE 98 and other tune to our stations they expect great radio, free research. Read, re-read and internal- consistent in appeal to the programming ize it. Use VALS to create the language of they’ve come to value any other time of the your messages, geared to the listeners in year. your audience. When we disappoint them, they get resentful. n Coordinate more effectively with your de- When we please them, they get generous. velopment department. Support your development staff’s efforts to raise more money AUDIENCE 98’s best news about on-air fundrais- off air. ing encourages us to focus on higher quality content and better production values during n Be open to new ideas and prepared to jetti- drives. son old ones. n Watch for what’s working at other stations Listeners who think that fund drives are and adopt it. People are already doing dra- getting easier to listen to are far more likely matic things with short drives. That may be than others to keep listening. one answer; there may also be others. If we make on-air campaigns more listenable, Most of all, take AUDIENCE 98’s news about fund we can offset some of the damage that on-air drives seriously and start planning to take ac- drives are certainly causing. tion today. – Steve Martin

Audience Volunteers Support 144 AUDIENCE 98 Low Anxiety

Public radio listeners may not resent underwrit- But synergistically, as three facets of a single ing credits as much as on-air fund drives, but sense, agreement with these statements adds nearly half are somewhat “anxious” about them. up to “underwriting anxiety” – and nearly half (44%) of all listeners are afflicted. n Three-in-four (77%) think that “the on-air mentions of business support are getting Does Underwriting Anxiety influence giving to more prevalent than in the past.” public radio? n One-in-three (35%) perceive that “the on- Not yet. air mentions of business support are getting more annoying than in the past.” Right now, listeners with it are just as likely to give to public radio as those without it. n Half (50%) say “I am concerned that businesses which support public radio may But in the future this low-grade fever may bloom. eventually force changes in the program- Listeners with Underwriting Anxiety are twice ming.” as likely to say that “I personally would be Separately, these responses convey listener at- less likely to contribute to public radio if more titudes about individual aspects of underwriting businesses supported it.” on public radio. Underwriting Anxiety is a condition that public radio professionals would do well to Public Radio Listeners Say: monitor. An additional irritation – whether it’s On-Air Mentions of Business Support more spots, more messages that annoy, or a

100% perception that business support is affecting 77% programming – could compound the problem.

50% Given widespread resentment of on-air fund 35% drives listeners may be less forgiving if their

Who Agree nerves are further frayed.

Percent of Listeners of Percent – Leslie Peters 0% – David Giovannoni Are More May Force Are More Prevalent Changes Annoying – Jay Youngclaus

AUDIENCE 98 145 Audience Volunteers Support Low Anxiety It’s Got them Under Their Skins

Underwriting Anxiety is endemic. That’s the di- influence programming. agnosis from AUDIENCE 98 . The greatest difference – and the driving No characteristic, behavior or attitude can pre- force behind Underwriting Anxiety – is an- dict the nervousness induced when a listener noyance. has the combined perception that business Listeners with Underwriting Anxiety are 12 times support has become more prevalent and an- more likely to be annoyed by on-air mentions noying and may force programming changes. of business support than listeners without it. Givers and non-givers have it. So do the core Like prevalence and influence, we can con- and the fringe. It indiscriminately cuts across trol the attributes that lead to annoyance. An- age, race, sex, income, education and VALS noyance is also the perception we can alter categories. No type of listener is immune. with the greatest benefit and the least finan- Listeners with and without anxiety agree some- cial sacrifice. what that underwriting spots have increased. Close attention paid to presentation – length, They share less the view that underwriters may language, production, repetition and voice tone – may maximize underwriting’s return and minimize listener irritation. Public Radio Listeners Say: On-Air Mentions of Business Support On the other hand, some listeners simply may be biased against 97% 100% businesses supporting public radio. It may conflict with their ideal 72% 72% 61% of public radio as a noncommercial medium. For this pre-existing 32% condition there may be no cure. Who Agree More research is needed to deter-

Percent of Listeners of Percent 6% mine the best medicine. The 0% healthiest practice is preventive Are More May Force Are More care. Prevalent Changes Annoying Listeners WITH Underwriting Anxiety – John Sutton Listeners WITHOUT Underwriting Anxiety – Peter Dominowski – Leslie Peters

Audience Volunteers Support 146 AUDIENCE 98 Low Anxiety Coping with Underwriting Anxiety

What, me worry? The listener’s consternation is not so difficult to –Alfred E. Neuman understand. He hears us say we’ve reached our pledge drive goal, but in the next hour we Nearly half of public radio’s listeners are “anx- ask for more. We describe ourselves as non- ious” about underwriting. commercial, yet underwriting credits often Does that mean you should be worried too? sound like advertising. Everything a public radio station broadcasts ir- Pledge drive resentment and Underwriting ritates someone. Even the most popular pro- Anxiety are problems but they are also oppor- grams have their detractors. While responsive tunities. stations strive to please most of their listeners First, we can research and adopt the most most of the time, some percentage of listener effective underwriting tactics while maintain- disapproval is unavoidable. ing public radio’s values. Second, we can position underwriting as the What Do Listeners Think About necessary and beneficial source of income On-Air Pledge Drives vs. Underwriting Spots? it is.

100% Effective Underwriting 76% 77% While AUDIENCE 98 cannot specify the exact 59% causes of Underwriting Anxiety, the likely can-

35% didates are some combination of: Who Agree Placement: Where in the programming the an- Percent Of Listeners Of Percent nouncement is heard. 0% Are More Prevalent Are More Annoying Length: How long the underwriting credit is per- On-Air Pledge Drives Underwriting Spots ceived to be. Repetition: How often listeners perceive that Recent findings by AUDIENCE 98 demonstrate they are hearing the same credit and/or mes- that a significant percentage of listeners harbor sages by the same underwriter. some resentment towards on-air pledge drives. Should this be a cause for concern and a call to Content: The actual words and/or production action? used in the credit. Absolutely. Individual givers are essential to Delivery: The sound and style of the announcer public radio. in reading the credit. But should stations react to this information by Category: The type of product or service men- severely curtailing on-air fundraising goals or tioned in the credit. eliminating pledge drives all together? Abso- Each of these elements can be researched for lutely not. its positive and negative attributes. The results Such is also the case for business support and can be actionable for both local and national Underwriting Anxiety. credits.

AUDIENCE 98 147 Audience Volunteers Support In an ideal world, networks, stations and pro- giving during pledge drives. It’s time to take the ducers would work with each other to present same step for underwriting. underwriting effectively. Here are just a few of the positive messages Positioning that could be communicated: Public radio has a unique relationship with lis- n Business support helps shorten on-air fund teners, and particularly with givers. They have drives. high expectations for the product and its pre- n Underwriting doesn’t “cover” programming; sentation. it occupies built-in cutaways. In turn, we expect them to accept our fundraising n Stations and producers need and seek un- needs and techniques on faith. We believe they derwriters, but maintain inviolate polices should acquiesce – without explanation – to an- against editorial interference. nouncements in and around their favorite pro- n Listener and business support together programming from a myriad of national and local vide the most stable, viable and independent businesses. funding option for public radio. Should we really be surprised that a high per- Research is needed to identify the most effec- centage of listeners have Underwriting Anxiety tive messages. But even absent such tests it’s when most do not understand the financial ne- good business to explain to listeners that, in this cessity of business support? era of scaled back subsidies, underwriters are public radio’s allies. And that makes them lis- How many managers have taken any time to teners’ allies too. explain the differences between underwriting and commercials? To position underwriting as a valu- A little knowledge and understanding can go able service that, when combined with dollars a long way towards reducing Underwriting from listeners, makes the purchase of their fa- Anxiety. vorite programs possible? – Peter Dominowski We attempt to explain the rationale for individual – John Sutton

Audience Volunteers Support 148 AUDIENCE 98 Low Anxiety Doing Business on the Air

When it comes to raising significant amounts At many stations, underwriting generates more of money, most stations use their airtime two income per minute of airtime than on-air ways: On-air pledge drives and underwriting fundraising. You can calculate this for yourself credits. (see below). To many listeners’ ears, underwriting credits are There’s no doubt that on-air drives are the a more tolerable way to raise money than on- most effective means of recruiting new giv- air pledge drives. According to AUDIENCE 98 ers to a station, and that on-air drives make money. But a thoughtful plan that considers a third (35%) find underwriting credits more listener sensitivities and the rate of return on annoying than in the past, but six-in-10 the two major sources of revenue could yield (59%) say fund drives are getting harder to a more successful, long-term fundraising listen to. strategy for the future. How can public radio professionals use these – John Sutton two pieces of information to maximize listener- sensitive income while minimizing damage to Note: Definitions used in the formulas are found on listener relations? page 171.

Calculating Income per Minute

On-Air Pledge Drives:

Total Dollars Raised = Total Dollars Pledged x Fulfillment Rate Income per Minute = Total Dollars Raised / Total Minutes Spent Pitching

Underwriting:

True Average Rate = Total Dollars Collected / Total Credits Broadcast Be sure to include all bonus spots. Income per Minute = True Average Rate x Credit Length Factor2

For 10 second credits multiply True Average Rate by 6. For 15 second credits multiply True Average Rate by 4. For 20 second credits multiply True Average Rate by 3. For 30 second credits multiply True Average Rate by 2.

AUDIENCE 98 149 Audience Volunteers Support Yield Not to Temptation

Here’s a fact that should tempt any joint lic- The only step they have ascended is the first ensee: For every two public radio givers, there step of listening. In no other way do they dis- is another listener who does not give to public tinguish themselves from other public radio radio but who does give to public television. non-givers.

About 17 percent of all public radio listeners AUDIENCE 98 can’t explain why public radio lis- support public TV but not public radio. And it’s teners give to public TV, but other studies sug- very tempting – and relatively easy for any joint gest an ethic of giving. (For instance, during the licensee – to pitch our tent in the land of TV same sample period as AUDIENCE 98, Simmons supporters and evangelize public radio support. cites charitable giving by public radio listeners as well above the national average.) But friends, yield not to this temptation, as public television’s audience is no place to seek If this ethic exists, however, it does not ex- these souls, for they do not walk in that tend to public radio. As AUDIENCE 98 and pre- place. vious research tell us, Stairway to Heaven public radio is paid for by appreciative users – not givers of charity. Why would public radio’s own listeners give to public television and not to public radio? Perhaps public radio givers pledge to public TV for the same reasons they give to public radio. Simple. They haven’t climbed public radio’s Perhaps public TV has its own Stairway to Stairway to Given. Given. We don’t know for sure. Public radio listeners who give to public TV We do know that public television’s giving au- but not to public radio look like any other dience is not a place from which public radio public radio non-giver. In other words, givers can be any more efficiently redeemed these listeners don’t rely as much on public than anywhere else. radio as do givers; they don’t consider it as – David Giovannoni important in their lives; and they are less – Leslie Peters apt to believe that their support is essential – Jay Youngclaus and government support is minimal.

Audience Volunteers Support 150 AUDIENCE 98 Yield Not to Temptation Why Do Some Listeners Support Public TV But Not Public Radio?

The reason some listeners contribute to public The key point is this: television but not to public radio is simple: they Public radio listeners who give to public haven’t climbed public radio’s Stairway to Given television – but not to public radio – – AUDIENCE 98’s metaphorical pathway to sup- match closely the profile of listeners who port. give to neither. The table below traces the steps for four types – Jay Youngclaus of listeners. The Stairway to Given is explained – Leslie Peters in detail on pages 115-116. – David Giovannoni.

Stairway to Given Give to Give Only Give to Give to (For most-listened-to Public Radio Station) BOTH to RADIO TV Only NEITHER

Percent of Listeners 30 5 17 48 Percent of Listening 45 7 13 36 Percent of Givers 86 14 0 0 Percent of Giving 86 14 0 0

Steps 1&2 Percent in Core 70 63 39 37 Reliance Loyalty 57 53 31 29 on Years Listening to Station 12 9 10 8 Public Percent with “Strong” Radio Reliance on Public Radio 71 65 39 34 Percent who listen both Weekdays and Weekends 71 62 50 42 Occasions (per week) 11 10 7 6 TSL (HR:MN per week) 13:45 12:45 7:00 6:45

Step 3 Percent who agree Personal Public Radio Station Importance is Personally Important 97 95 90 84 Percent with “Strong” Sense of Community 75 70 55 44

Step 4 Percent who have Beliefs Funding Associated with Giving Beliefs to Public Radio 43 39 34 33

Step 5 Average Annual Ability Household Income $84,000 $67,000 $70,000 $54,000 to Afford

AUDIENCE 98 151 Audience Volunteers Support Yield Not to Temptation A Tale of Two Audiences

Public radio and public television audiences overlap but they’re hardly a Public Radio vs. Public TV hand-in-glove fit.

First, public television’s glove is far too Public Radio Public TV big. Reach of U.S. 91% 99% Each week, more than four times Population as many Americans watch public television as listen to public radio. Weekly Cume 10% 38% of age 12+ of age 2+ The math is clear. Most public television viewers don’t Listening/ More than Nearly listen to public radio. Viewing 8 hours 3 hours per week It’s not because they haven’t heard of Source: Corporation for Public Broadcasting. us or can’t get a signal. They simply choose not to listen because they aren’t the type of people to whom our programming appeals. Public Radio vs. Public TV: As a group, public radio listeners Education have far more education than public TV viewers, and so – 70% 63% unsurprisingly – they earn more Public Radio Public TV money. The best educated groups of Ameri-

30% cans are baby boomers and Gen 27% 26% 22% Xers. Again, no surprise that public 17% 12% radio serves them in much higher Percent of Audience 4% concentrations than public television 0% (note that this difference diminishes Less than HS HS Grad Some College College Grad + during television’s evening prime Source: AUDIENCE 98 (radio), 1996-97 Nielsen/PBS (TV). time hours). Nielsen determines education by head-of-household, not by individual.

Audience Volunteers Support 152 AUDIENCE 98 Public Radio vs. Public TV: Public Radio vs. Public TV: Age Annual Income

50% Public Radio 50% Public Radio 42% Public TV Public TV 34% 27% 27% 27% 24% 23% 23% 22% 21% 19% 17% 18% 17% 18% 18% 13% 6% 3% Percent of of Audience Percent Percent of of Audience Percent 0% 0% 2 to 11* 12 to 17 18 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65+ Less than $20 to $39K $40 to $59K $60K + $20K Source: Spring 1997 Arbitron (radio), Nielsen/ Source: Spring 1997 Arbitron (radio), Nielsen/ PBS 1996-97 (TV). *Arbitron does not PBS 1996-97 (TV). *Arbitron does not measure listeners under 12. measure listeners under 12.

Public TV viewers may be better educated than Both media may be “public,” but the two pub- most Americans, but they do not approach the lics they serve are significantly different. educational attainment of public radio’s listeners. Because of this disparity, – Leslie Peters public radio’s programming just doesn’t ap- – Jay Youngclaus peal to most public television viewers. – David Giovannoni

AUDIENCE 98 153 Audience Volunteers Support Yield Not to Temptation Reality Check

Reality can be a drag. Especially when research n We don’t create special messages for this findings get in the way of your intuition. group. For instance, we at KERA once thought that What do we do? Return to the programming public radio listeners who give to public televi- basics: make our public radio service more sion – but not to public radio – would be a good reliable and personally important to more of target for public radio giving messages. our listeners. Our logic was simple. These public TV givers/ If we focus on making the programming deci- public radio non-givers obviously watch public sions necessary to influence the larger segment TV. And they already “buy” the notion of sup- of public radio non-givers, we will push them porting public broadcasting. That should place up the Stairway to Given – and public television them one step ahead of those who listen to givers/public radio non-givers will be swept public radio but don’t give to either public radio along. or television. KERA has used our public television member Our plan was simple too. Using KERA’s shared list to solicit new radio givers – with a 1.2% re- radio and TV resources, we’d put some mes- turn rate that’s considered pretty good by direct sages on our TV station asking these folks for mail standards. But we realize there’s nothing pubic radio support. We’d develop special mes- special about the public TV file – because other sages for them to be used in on-air pledge ap- lists can return the same rate. peals and direct mail appeals, too. Our public Our radio station manager, justly proud of the TV giver database would help the cause. strong relationship between the two stations, Now AUDIENCE 98 tells us that public radio lis- initially felt that we had the perfect opportu- teners who give to public television but not to nity to experiment with public television on- public radio are no different than any non-sup- air promotion and messages that might reach porter of public radio. the public radio non-giver/public television giver. Promoting public radio on public television can’t change this fact, however clever the copy, fre- After thinking about AUDIENCE 98’s findings, he quent the spots, or “free” the TV air time. concluded that So much for Plan A. On to Plan B. time would be better spent crafting messages for public radio non-givers of any It’s not so much a matter of what we do with stripe. this new information – it’s what we don’t do. First and foremost, we don’t use limited sta- Reality is a drag – but wasted effort means pre- tion resources to target this group. cious time and resources lost. Intuition isn’t always correct. Reoriented by this new knowl- n We don’t put spots on public television look- edge, KERA is back on the giving path. ing for this group. n We don’t promote the radio pledge drive, – Jeff Hansen or special programs associated with it, on Station Manager, KERA-FM the public television station. – Ellen Burch Director of Market Research, KERA/KDTN n We don’t target mailings to this group.

Audience Volunteers Support 154 AUDIENCE 98 8.

The Buck Stops Here

Information has value only if it’s used.

AUDIENCE 98 is the kind of comprehensive study that public radio invests in just once every 10 years. While we know that it has a cost, we don’t know yet if it will have a pay-off. The buck stops here, with you. Pioneer public broadcaster Ron Bornstein once observed that public radio’s history is that of individuals, not institutions. Individuals, taking initiative, shaped our industry. Their accomplishments are evidence that each of us, as working professionals, can make a difference. If the past is prologue, it will be individuals again who seize the day, proving the value of AUDIENCE 98 by acting on its lessons in their daily work lives.

This last chapter tells such a story of individuals who took AUDIENCE 88 off the shelf – and used it to substantially enrich a station’s public service and public support.

AUDIENCE 98 155 The Buck Stops Here The Buck Stops Here 156 AUDIENCE 98 Public Service Economics

Editor’s note: AUDIENCE 98 is a snapshot of public gramming that covers issues important to our radio’s listeners, not a study of the audience as it listeners. evolves over time. But in Connecticut Public Radio we have an example that approaches a time study, Maximizing the Value of Local a station with a ten year history of applying program- Service ming economics under the same management. Be- cause it’s a unique link between AUDIENCE 88 and A good local public affairs program is expen- AUDIENCE 98, with a noteworthy story to tell, we sive, so it’s critical to make the best use of the asked Connecticut Public Radio’s program director investment. Ten years ago, before programming to write this report. economics, our sole effort at local journalism Programming economics is a great tool. At a was squandered. glance you can see that some programs are Called Open Air New England, its length and making money and some are losing money. start times were inconsistent. Listeners had to For a commercial station, the choice is simple. work to find it; many gave up. On-air promotion It’s all about the bottom line. If you’re not maxi- was ineffective. And it was bleeding money by mizing profits, you make programming changes the bucket. that are often swift and dramatic. Open Air New England became The Faith For a public station, the objective is differ- Middleton Show, a daily one-hour Peabody ent. At Connecticut Public Radio, mission Award-winning program leading in to All Things drives our programming decisions. Considered. It’s now a valuable asset to Con- necticut Public Radio, connecting us with the It led to our original study of programming eco- community and performing above the station’s nomics in August 1988, which was part of a average listener loyalty line. larger audience building project. How could we maintain our mission, increase listening, expand It still loses money, but, by applying pro- community support and stabilize finances? gramming economics, we can support it without putting the rest of our service in fi- The powerful force pushing us to these ques- nancial jeopardy. tions was federal budget cuts of public broadcasting funds, compounded by minuscule state How did we do that? We turned another station support for our community licensee station. In- money loser into an income source. And, in the creased reliance on listener-sensitive income process, we took an enormous risk by killing appeared on our fiscal horizon sooner than it syndicated programming that generated a profit. did for many public radio stations. Killing the Golden Goose To serve the public, we had to stay in business. The goal then, as now, was signifi- Ten years ago Connecticut Public Radio’s big- cant programming for significant audiences. gest moneymaker was Morning Pro Musica, a seven-day, 7 AM classical music strip produced Connecticut Public Radio was formed primarily at WGBH/Boston with host Robert J. Lurtsema. to present classical music. Our mission state- It defined our core audience, much as Morning ment imagines a public service that educates, Edition does today. informs and entertains. The purchase price of Morning Pro Musica was It’s a broad mandate. We fulfill it by integrating about $40,000 a year, but it cost us a little over national news and classical music with local pro-

AUDIENCE 98 157 The Buck Stops Here $147,000 when we factored in operational but it was draining station resources and not costs. The net return, in listener-sensitive doing much for our audience. Serving the pub- income, was about $184,000. Morning Pro lic won out over serving genre. Musica was clearly a lucrative investment - one that propped up the money-losing portions of Building Cume with Simple our schedule - which, at the time, was just about Arithmetic everything else. In tandem, we made more economical use of Still, the program created problems: Its clock expensive national programming by expanding was impenetrable, offering us virtually no the hours of Morning Edition and All Things opportunities to localize it. We couldn’t even Considered. Aside from the increased opera- squeeze in promo spots for our other pro- tional costs of more broadcast hours - an ex- gramming. pense we would have no matter what we aired at those times - it was a cheap move. And that The producer was highly resistant to change. simple programming economics decision Another source of income was Adventures in redefined our audience and enlarged our Good Music with Karl Haas. Together, these two cume. strips marked daily occasions when we gave Success didn’t happen overnight but we had up control of our own air, with programming that faith that we were on the right track. Eventually, was duplicated on other stations in our market. over the years, listener-sensitive revenue grew, While Morning Pro Musica (and to a much as our programming became better and our lesser extent AIGM) was the golden goose of scheduling got smarter. our balance sheets, from a promotion and pub- Today the income from national news and lic service perspective it was something of an local classical music pays for a significant albatross. To reclaim its resources to finance local public affairs program with a significant our changes, we killed it. audience. Letting Go of Sentimental In addition, demonstrating our ability to make Favorites changes that listeners will support has given us a degree of financial independence, along with At the time, like public affairs, our station-based confidence in our future despite further federal classical music programming was losing money, cutbacks. due in large part to a costly local concert strip. We haven’t solved all of our problems of course, We considered recording and producing local but we have been able to move forward, fixing performances a public service, an important and refining our schedule in a continual search attempt to reflect the cultural richness of our for improvement. Public service is not a static community. The audience, however, valued endeavor. it much less than we did – almost no one was listening. We were having a similar expe- To monitor our performance, we use research rience with a local folk music show. tools like Arbitron numbers and AudiGraphics’ total and core loyalty percentages. Listener in- With mission as the engine, and audience come isn’t the only factor we consider when research as the fuel, we were driven to cre- making programming decisions. ate a better classical music service, one that made financial sense and that listeners In this mix, programming economics continues would appreciate and support. to provide a valuable tool to determine listener satisfaction. Folk musicians in particular loved the folk show

The Buck Stops Here 158 AUDIENCE 98 Serving the Public is the Pay-Off In fact, a better term for programming economics may be public service economics. For us, Ten years after Connecticut Public Radio’s case as for any public radio station, public service is study appeared in the seminal research on pro- the ultimate bottom line. gramming economics, our public service is steadily improving – as measured by listening – Kim D. Grehn and giving. Program Director, Connecticut Public Radio

AUDIENCE 98 159 The Buck Stops Here Public Service Economics Connecticut Public Radio by the Numbers

Editor’s Note: Connecticut Public Radio is the ming Economics report, an immediate follow-up to case study featured in the original 1989 Program- AUDIENCE 88.

Table 1 AUDIENCE 88 Listener Underwriter Expense Return R.O.I. Income Income

Morning Pro Musica $305,759 $26,000 $147,500 $184,259 2.25 Aft Classics $96,991 $9,000 $103,400 $2,591 1.03 ATC Weekday $101,557 $37,000 $63,950 $74,607 2.17 Morn Edition $69,376 $15,000 $39,000 $45,376 2.16 Eve Concerts $63,763 $8,000 $125,000 -$53,237 0.57 WeEd $24,129 $1,000 $25,000 $129 1.01 Interviews (Local) $32,257 $5,000 $114,000 -$76,743 0.33 APHC $51,993 $12,000 $20,000 $43,993 3.20 All Else $124,175 $17,000 $242,950 -$101,775 0.58

Total $870,000 $130,000 $880,800 $119,200 1.14

Table 2 AUDIENCE 88 % of % of Return Return Total Lsnr Listening Listener From Listeners From Underwriting Sens Return Support (Cents/LH) (Cents/LH) (Cents/LH)

Morning Pro Musica 40% 33% 1.6 0.1 1.8 Aft Classics 15% 11% 1.4 0.1 1.5 ATC Weekday 9% 14% 2.4 0.9 3.3 Morn Edition 5% 8% 2.9 0.6 3.6 Eve Concerts 8% 7% 1.8 0.2 2.0 WeEd 3% 3% 1.9 0.1 2.0 Interviews (Local) 4% 4% 1.7 0.3 2.0 APHC 4% 6% 2.8 0.7 3.5 All Else 12% 14% 2.2 0.3 2.5

Total 100% 100% 1.9 0.3 2.2

The Buck Stops Here 160 AUDIENCE 98 What We Saw What We Changed At the time of our 1988 programming econom- In addition to a consistent start time and better ics study cross-promotion, the studios for Open Air New England – which had been reserved solely for n Morning Pro Musica’s net revenue was its use – were opened to other production, al- $184,000. lowing us to spread the studio costs through- n Connecticut Public Radio’s overall net out the company. gain was $119,000. Local efforts were losing money. When we cancelled Evening Concerts, we didn’t n Open Air New England lost $77,000. give up on locally recorded classical music en- n Evening Concerts (locally recorded clas- tirely, but we did re-evaluate it. Now we main- sical) lost $53,000. stream local performances into the rest of our n All Else (local live folk) lost $102,000. locally originated classical music service. Because our core audience was still solidly clas- Everything produced locally that we perceived sical, we didn’t expand Morning Edition right as a public service was performing poorly. Sum- away. In 1993 it was expanded to two hours mer 1989 listener loyalty figures, available to and in 1995 to three (until 9 AM). us just before we made the changes, confirmed our suspicions.

Table 3 AUDIENCE 98 Listener Underwriter Expense Return R.O.I. Income Income

Classical (Local) $464,879 $95,040 $160,000 $399,919 3.50 Morning Edition $361,990 $368,000 $304,000 $425,990 2.40 ATC Weekday $307,990 $226,000 $253,000 $280,990 2.11 All Other Acquired $111,703 $6,000 $90,000 $27,703 1.31 Classical 24 $42,318 $0 $10,000 $32,318 4.23 Interviews $57,326 $15,080 $90,000 ($17,594) 0.80 Perf Today $46,864 $14,800 $41,000 $20,664 1.50 Weekend Ed. Sat $20,257 $3,000 $38,000 ($14,743) 0.61 APHC $90,311 $19,600 $34,000 $75,911 3.23 MktPlce $17,266 $84,800 $41,000 $61,066 2.49 CarTalk $56,612 $10,800 $37,000 $30,412 1.82 World Of Opera $11,007 $2,760 $9,000 $4,767 1.53 Mon Radio $4,422 $6,920 $10,000 $1,342 1.13

Total $1,592,945 $852,800 $1,117,000 $1,328,745 2.19

AUDIENCE 98 161 The Buck Stops Here Table 4 AUDIENCE 98 % of % of Return From Return From Total Lsnr Listening Listener Listeners Underwriting Sens Return Support (Cents/LH) (Cents/LH) (Cents/LH)

Classical (Local) 34% 29% 2.0 0.4 2.4 Morning Edition 20% 23% 2.6 2.6 5.2 ATC Weekday 16% 19% 2.8 2.1 4.9 All Other Acquired 5% 7% 3.0 0.2 3.2 Classical 24 5% 3% 1.2 0.0 1.2 Interviews 5% 4% 1.7 0.5 2.2 Perf Today 3% 3% 2.2 0.7 2.9 Weekend Ed. Sat 2% 1% 1.2 0.2 1.4 APHC 2% 6% 5.8 1.3 7.1 MktPlce 2% 1% 1.3 6.6 7.9 CarTalk 2% 4% 4.6 0.9 5.5 World Of Opera 2% 1% 0.9 0.2 1.2 Mon Radio 2% 0% 0.4 0.6 1.0

Total 100% 100% 2.3 1.2 3.5

Positive Results Our public service increased too. For example: We now have local reporters covering major n Open Air New England, now The Faith issues in Connecticut - something we couldn’t Middleton Show, still loses money – but afford before applying programming econom- a lot less at $17,600. ics and making the changes. n Local Classical now returns $400,000. – Kim D. Grehn

The Buck Stops Here 162 AUDIENCE 98 Appendix

AUDIENCE 98 163 Appendix Appendix 164 AUDIENCE 98 Appendix About AUDIENCE 98

AUDIENCE 98 is the most comprehensive re- About the Public Radio search project undertaken to date for public Recontact Survey radio. It’s based on a powerful research method called a recontact survey, which is the most In Fall 1996, across America, approximately efficient way to determine linkages between lis- 33,000 public radio listeners kept Arbitron dia- tening to public radio and the attitudes that ries. In early Spring 1997 Arbitron randomly motivate listeners to support public radio. selected 15,000 of these listeners and sent them a questionnaire designed to ascertain their The Public Radio Recontact Survey measured pledging behaviors, personal beliefs and atti- over 200 characteristics of public radio listen- tudes toward public radio. This is a key element ers. We learned, among many other things, in what is known as the Public Radio Recon- which programming they listen to; how much tact Survey. they value national and local programming re- spectively; who gives and who doesn’t; how The questionnaire was designed by David much they give; their use of the Internet; their Giovannoni of Audience Research Analysis perception of on-air fundraising and underwrit- (ARA); Tom Thomas and Terry Clifford of Tho- ing credits; and the qualities that define their mas & Clifford; and George Bailey of Walrus lifestyles and values. Research. Giovannoni, Thomas and Clifford had collaborated on public radio’s first recon- David Giovannoni of Audience Research Analy- tact survey, AUDIENCE 88, 10 years earlier. sis in Derwood, Maryland led AUDIENCE 98’s Core Team. Team members included editor and A recontact survey is not only a powerful re- writer Leslie Peters and statistical analyst Jay search method, it’s also time and cost efficient. Youngclaus. Here’s why: Arbitron already takes a random sample of radio listeners in America and that From September 1997 through February 1999, includes a random sample of people who tune AUDIENCE 98’S Core Team analyzed the Recon- to public radio. It already measures seven days tact Survey responses and issued reports via of listening in 15-minute increments. In short, the Internet at the ARAnet website Arbitron collects most of the data needed. Al- (ARAnet.com). Some edited versions of reports though Arbitron is not in the recontact survey also appeared in the public broadcasting news- business, it did this project for public radio. paper Current. The Recontact Survey draws its information All the information published by AUDIENCE 98, from various sources: the questionnaire mailed including statistical analyses and other ma- to listeners; Arbitron diaries (which offer infor- terials that do not appear in this book, con- mation for each diary keeper about his/her lis- tinue to be freely available at ARAnet. The tening to public and commercial radio); site also offers an extensive Research Library AudiGraphics and National AudiGraphics; and of past public radio research, including many the system that analyzes and categorizes lis- seminal studies and reports. teners’ values and lifestyles, VALS. Major funding for the project was supplied by Nearly 8,000 listeners returned usable question- the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, with naires. These 8,000 respondents comprise “the additional support from Audience Research national sample.” Analysis and 91 public radio stations.

AUDIENCE 98 165 Appendix The national sample was commissioned by the Access to the data requires a password from Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) as CPB. a resource for all of public radio. It represents In addition to the national sample, 91 public ra- the national norms and the big picture for pub- dio stations paid Arbitron to recontact all the di- lic radio. ary keepers who listened to them. They are The national sample data is available on called the “Piggy-Back” stations because their ARAnet. Instructions on how to use it can be surveys piggy-backed on the national Recon- found in an area called “The Database Toolkit.” tact Survey.

Appendix 166 AUDIENCE 98 Appendix How AUDIENCE 98 Links Listener Income to Listening

Listener income is a ready number at most pub- Clearly, listener support must be apportioned lic stations. But knowledge of listener income is across all programming used – not just a most useful when tied to the programming in- listener’s reported favorites. spiring it. This is a much more demanding task. In addition, as the most advanced stations in On first thought it seems reasonable to link the system generate more income through off- an on-air drive’s pledges to the programming air renewals, the links between specific pro- on the air at that time. However, not only is gramming and listener support becomes even pledge tracking insufficient for this purpose, less apparent. it also provides misleading and just plain The key point is this: Listeners’ willingness wrong information. to give is tied directly to the personal im- There are three problems with the pledge-track- portance of the programming in their lives. ing method. Although many public broad- The on-air appeal, the direct mail solicitation, casters understand these drawbacks, they and other fundraising methods are merely the continue to track pledges, because they catalysts – not the cause – of the giving. assume it is still a valid form of feedback. Done well, they can accelerate the act of giving Unfortunately, it is not. but they cannot make givers out of listeners who The first problem is that listeners can pledge do not already experience deep satisfaction with only when at a phone, and only then when the a station’s programming service. situation allows – typically when they are at home and not otherwise occupied. For this rea- Technical Details son true listener income from Morning Edition In order to link listener income to specific ser- and All Things Considered, which play in morn- vices on your station, you must ing and afternoon “drive-times” is probably under-represented, while income from A Prairie n Recontact your station’s Arbitron diary Home Companion, Car Talk and other evening keepers, and weekend programming is probably over- n Identify givers and their giving levels, and represented. n Merge the required programming, listening Many professionals try to work around this and listener support data into the variables problem by administering a simple survey to called for by the programming economics givers. The survey asks givers to report their system. favorite programming – presumably the pro- You do this by apportioning each giver’s fi- gramming that causes them to support the nancial contribution across programming, station. but such self-evaluated preference based on the amount of time each giver lis- reports inaccurately represent listeners’ mo- tens to each service. tives. That is exactly what AUDIENCE 98 accomplishes AUDIENCE 88, like the “Cheap 90” study before nationally and the Local Programming Econom- it, showed clearly that use of the station’s to- ics Reports achieve specifically. The Public tal service is the best single predictor of sup- Radio Recontact Survey updates systemwide port. The more frequently people tune in, and data from AUDIENCE 88 and provides, for the the more types of programming they listen to, first time, local information to a limited list of the more likely they are to support public radio. “Piggy-Back” stations.

AUDIENCE 98 167 Appendix At the micro level of the individual listener, this A decade after we first learned to make this method of apportioning listener income across connection its constancy is confirmed by the programming that generates it assumes a AUDIENCE 98. generally linear relationship between listener – John Sutton income and programming use, and between lis- –Leslie Peters tener income and personal importance.

Appendix 168 AUDIENCE 98 Appendix How AUDIENCE 98 Links Underwriting Income to Listening

Underwriting income is income (cash or trade) mation from Period One, they were asked to generated by underwriting and paid announce- provide it from Period Two (second preference) ments sold by stations. It is the financial sup- or Period Three (third preference). port for programming paid in return for on-air Period Three was the third preference because mention of that support. It is listener-sensitive, it runs through the Christmas holiday and there in that the organization providing the cash or is a presumed change in underwriting patterns trade finds value in reaching listeners, and that and revenues at this time. Due to software and value is influenced by the number and quali- record keeping limitations, some stations were ties of the people in the audience. only able to provide estimates for one month in AUDIENCE 98 asked 112 stations with sufficient the survey period. Arbitron sample to provide program-specific un- Weekly underwriting income averages are derwriting income for its Program Economics calculated from these numbers to correspond analyses. The survey was designed by John with Arbitron’s weekly audience estimates. Sutton of John Sutton Associates and con- AUDIENCE 98 typically shows these numbers as ducted by Debora Giovannoni of Data Integrity annual totals (in dollars) or as the underwriting in the summer of 1997. return per listener-hour (in cents). Fifty-six stations participated, two of which do Limitations. While this study measures how not solicit underwriting for their programming. much underwriting income is generated, it does Although they are not a true “national sample,” not ascertain how that return is achieved. It does AUDIENCE 98 presents and uses them as the not look at units available, sold, or aired as bo- current best estimate of program-specific un- nuses. It does not track sales strategy, pricing, derwriting information for public radio. or effort. Nor does it control for season (many The study collected underwriting information for stations commented that Fall is their best quar- all programs that generated at least one per- ter for underwriting billings). cent of all listening to the station in the Fall 1996 While not a limitation per se, we note that the Arbitron survey. study looks at the total audience generated by Time period. Stations were asked to report un- each program. In some cases repeats or derwriting income from one of three periods: rollovers generate audience but return little in additional underwriting. This correctly lowers the n September 19, 1996 through December 11, return per listener-hour, but it may seem to un- 1996, or der-represent the value of the first airing. n September 1, 1996 through November 30, We also note that while AUDIENCE 98 links 1996, or underwriting income with reported listening, it n October 1, 1996 through December 31, is likely that Arbitron estimates from Spring 1996. 1996 or earlier were used to sell the Fall 1996 contracts. Period One coincides with the Fall Arbitron survey. If stations could not provide exact infor- – John Sutton

AUDIENCE 98 169 Appendix Appendix What We Learned by Gathering Underwriting Information from Stations

“Programming causes audience.” try standards for tracking underwriting support – AUDIENCE 88 by program must clearly be addressed before “We don’t sell underwriting by program, so we this key relationship can be studied and moved can’t get that information.” forward. – Numerous public radio station professionals However, these limitations have not kept us Public radio relies more heavily on underwrit- from forming the following impressions during ing income with each passing year. Program- our discussions with stations. ming causes the audience that underwriters “buy.” The AUDIENCE 98 Underwriting Survey is Factors Affecting Underwriting the first system-wide attempt to link underwrit- Income ing to the programming that causes it. A station’s ability to generate underwriting rests There are two reasons why managers at sta- on a combination of factors: audience, program tions would want to link underwriting income to format, market conditions, strategy, and effort. specific programming. First, it allows them to track Audience is a result of having the right program their full financial return from each programming on the right station at the right time. The num- investment. Second, it provides tools with which ber of hours a program is on the air, the avail- to compare financial returns across all program- able audience, and the program’s power affect ming in their schedule. the size and qualities of the audience served The Underwriting Survey during an individual program or daypart or package. This influences pricing and selling strate- AUDIENCE 98 invited 112 stations to augment gies. their estimates of listener support with program- specific information about underwriting (defined Program Format influences the number of here as any financial support for programming credit avails in each hour. Some programs of- in return for on-air mention of that support). In fer more avails and as such offer greater po- the process of gathering this information we tential for income. learned valuable lessons about record keeping Market Conditions such as exclusivity, unique- and information management at stations. ness, competition, and sell-through rates can Several stations generated underwriting figures influence underwriters’ demand for a program. by program quickly and easily. But for most it This offers the opportunity for flexibility in the was a challenge, due primarily to rates charged by a station. insufficient record keeping, inadequate soft- Strategies vary across stations and programs ware, or the belief that program-specific in- more than any other factor. come figures are not relevant because un- n Some stations offer 10-second credits in derwriting is sold by dayparts and program drive time while others run only thirty-sec- packages. ond credits. From its inception, the AUDIENCE 98 Underwrit- n Some offer combinations of 15-second ing Survey was seen as a pilot project to inform credits and 30-second paid announce- subsequent endeavors. The need to set indus- ments.

Appendix 170 AUDIENCE 98 n Some sell at the market cost-per-point while sions with participating stations suggest that we others sell well above or below that bench- need to clarify two concepts before we can mark. make meaningful comparisons among pro- n Some place bonus spots in weaker programs and across stations. These are the “True grams; this can help close deals but it also Average Rate” and the “True Cost-Per-Thou- lowers the return on the average credit. sand.” Analyzing underwriting income by program lets True Average Rate is a station’s underwriting a station evaluate the success of its strategies. income divided by the total number of credits or spots broadcast. This includes bonus spots. Effort also varies greatly across stations and We noticed during this process that most sta- programs. tions referred to their rate cards to report their n Some stations are aggressive in generat- average rate. Since many of these stations also ing new business. made liberal use of bonus spots, the True Av- erage Rate was significantly less than the pub- n Others wait for the phone to ring. lished rate. n Several stations admit selling just the “easy” dayparts and programs. The True Cost-Per-Thousand is determined by dividing a program’s, format’s, or daypart’s n Some have only one part-time person making sales calls while others have full-time True Average Rate by its average quarter-hour staffs of four or five. audience. True Average Rates and True Cost-Per-Thou- Average Rates and Cost-Per- sand are the foundations we need to compare Thousand the effectiveness of different programs and stations in generating underwriting income, and While AUDIENCE 98 did not collect information about avails, units sold, or credit rates, discus- their potential for underwriting growth. – John Sutton

AUDIENCE 98 171 Appendix Appendix Understanding the Giving Model

AUDIENCE 98’s Giving model is an statement of of the model on page 115 does not convey ei- the interactions between givers’ motivations, ther its finer points or the full extent of what we mindsets, and means. The simple statement learned in its creation.

The Giving Model Dependent Variable: Natural Logarithm of Annual Household Gift Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B S.E. Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 2.861 .099 28.941 .000

Time Spent Listening .006636 .000 .123 4.738 .000 Loyalty .001950 .001 .088 3.427 .001

Personal Importance of Network Programming .04081 .015 .063 2.672 .008 Personal Importance of Local Programming .03770 .013 .065 2.810 .005

Annual HH Income .003261 .000 .271 11.219 .000

Actualizer .108 .034 .076 3.158 .002

Joint Licensee .114 .032 .079 3.570 .000

Station’s Average Gift .002090 .000 .117 5.219 .000

Reliance: Time Spent Listening by the listener to the supported public radio station is in hours per week. Loyalty of the listener is the percentage of all his or her listening to radio that is to the supported station. Personal Importance: The Personal Importance of Local and Network Programming are measured on a six-point scale, with 6 being “agree definitely” that the station’s “network [or local] programming is an important part of my life. If it went away I would miss it.” Listener Characteristics: Annual Household Income is in thousands of dollars per year. Actualizer is dummy coded (0,1) to indicate whether the listener’s primary or secondary VALS 2 type is Actualizer. Station Characteristics: Joint Licensee is dummy coded (0,1) to indicate the radio station is licensed jointly with a public television station. Station’s Average Gift is in dollars; it is the sum of all respondents’ gifts to the station divided by the number of respondents giving to the station.

Appendix 172 AUDIENCE 98 Definitions findings to emerge from our model. Households. The Public Radio Recontact Sur- Joint Licensees. We find no evidence that joint vey asks, “How much did your household licensees perform better as a group than other give to [station] in the year of your most re- stations. However, listeners who give to joint lic- cent contribution?” (emphasis added). Be- ensees report slightly higher giving levels. We in- cause the measurement is the household’s gift, terpret this simply as listeners reporting their gift AUDIENCE 98 aggregates the responses of lis- to the combined radio and television operation. teners in the same household into a single re- For instance, one household in Washington DC sponse. Therefore the giving model is based reports giving $60 to WAMU and $75 to WETA, upon the household rather than the individual, a joint licensee. But gifts to WETA radio are also unlike any other analysis in AUDIENCE 98. gifts to TV; for most listeners it would be impos- For a detailed discussion of “Households, sible to apportion the gift across the two opera- Pseudo-Respondents, and the Attribution of Lis- tions. Again, by controlling for this real and un- tener Support,” see pages six through eight in derstandable confusion, the remainder of the Public Radio Recontact Survey Database AUDIENCE 98’s size-of-gift findings is greatly Toolkit. strengthened. Annual Gift. Again, the survey asks, “How The Station Itself. Each station differs from much did your household give to [station] in the others in its tactics and ability to earn gifts from year of your most recent contribution?” (dif- listeners. At some stations the development ferent emphasis added). The reported number efforts may be more aggressive, the tactics is the sum total of gifts for the year for listen- more powerful, or the communities richer. ers who gave more than once, and should We find no readily apparent commonalities therefore be interpreted as an annual gift, not among stations with higer-than-average gift lev- the amount of the most recent gift. els. But our model acknowledges these dif- Current Givers. Both the “Givers” and “Giving” ferences and is greatly strengthened as a models created by AUDIENCE 98 focus on cur- result. rent givers only. The Public Radio Recontact The control variable used is a calculation of the Survey was fielded in March of 1997; current average station gift as calculated from the givers are those who said they “gave in 1996 AUDIENCE 98 database itself. Using a compo- or 1997.” Therefore, a current giver is a per- nent of the dependent variable (gift size) to pre- son who lives in a household that has given dict the dependent variable introduces to at least one public radio station in the last multicollinearity in the model. Analysis shows 15 months. the multicollinearity does not significantly alter Control Variables the remainder of the model. This table shows the standardized coefficients AUDIENCE 98’s Giving model acknowledges two (betas) for the model with and without the aver- station characteristics that make a difference in age gift variable. Note how the inclusion of the the size of listeners’ gifts. In statistical terms, variable increases the model’s predictive power we have “controlled” for the effects of these without disrupting the other independent variables. variables. This greatly strengthens the other

AUDIENCE 98 173 Appendix Model with Model without Average Gift Average Gift r2 = .152 r2 = .134

Time Spent Listening .123 .125 Loyalty .088 .085 Personal Importance of Network Programming .063 .059 Personal Importance of Local Programming .065 .055 Annual HH Income .271 .267 Actualizer .076 .068 Joint Licensee .079 .086 Station’s Average Gift .117

– David Giovannoni

Appendix 174 AUDIENCE 98 Note: Many listener characteristics could conceiv- specific demographics, utiligraphics, and attitudes ably influence the size of a person’s gift – but do toward public radio would add were each included not. This table shows how much the knowledge of next in the Giving Model.

Demographics Beta In Signif. Tolerance Sex -.009 .676 .955 Age .024 .298 .909 Education .007 .782 .824 White .029 .192 .987 Black -.008 .733 .983 Employed .019 .425 .895 Retired -.010 .681 .887 Fulfilled (VALS 2) .014 .609 .687

Utiligraphics Years Listening to the Station .022 .325 .963 Core Listener to the Station .043 .283 .305 Exclusive Listener to the Station -.015 .584 .642 Listens on Weekdays .015 .511 .911 Listens on Weekends .054 .019 .919 Time Spent Listening to News -.001 .966 .794 Time Spent Listening to Classical .000 .990 .926 Time Spent Listening to Jazz .017 .461 .948 Horizontal Hold to the Station .012 .697 .538 Occasions to the Station .048 .132 .476 Duration per Occasion to the Station -.029 .267 .730 Time Spent Listening to the Radio .015 .690 .351 Occasions to the Radio .028 .278 .745 Duration per Occasion to the Radio -.049 .058 .720 Horizontal Hold to the Radio .003 .885 .837

Attitudes and Perceptions Personal Importance of the Station -.017 .565 .546 The news programming on public radio is unique, not available on commercial stations .031 .211 .776 The music programming on public radio is unique, not available on commercial stations -.006 .799 .908 I seek out public radio whenever I move residence or travel out of town -.012 .636 .800 I generally think of public radio as being financially supported by contributing listeners .031 .175 .953 I generally think of public radio as being financially supported by universities or government tax dollars -.051 .021 .982 The social and cultural values I hear expressed on public radio usually fit closely with my own values .030 .209 .864 I keep listening to the public radio station during its on-air membership drives .048 .039 .890 The on-air membership drives are getting more prevalent than in the past -.020 .358 .985 The on-air membership drives are becoming easier to listen to than in the past .023 .314 .937 The on-air mentions of business support (underwriting) are getting more prevalent than in the past -.004 .871 .966 The on-air mentions of business support (underwriting) are getting more annoying than in the past -.026 .238 .993 My opinion of a company is more positive when I find out that it supports public radio -.024 .301 .931 I am concerned that businesses which support public radio may eventually force changes in the programming -.065 .004 .977 I personally would be less likely to contribute to public radio if more businesses were to support it -.055 .013 .990

AUDIENCE 98 175 Appendix Appendix 176 AUDIENCE 98 Audience Research Analysis (ARA) is a leading provider of tools that help public radio meet increasingly higher standards of public service. Its principle product is AudiGraphics, an advanced system of analyzing radio listening data from a public service perspective. ARA specializes in data reduction – the distillation and synthesis of masses of information – to create clear and powerful concepts. ARA serves its clients (and ultimately public radio’s listeners) by turning information into knowledge, knowledge into understanding, and understanding into action. Since 1977 ARA has collaborated on or produced nearly every seminal study of public radio’s audience. ARA maintains these reports as a service to the industry for as long as they have currency. Access and downloads are free from ARAnet.com.