Public Broadcasting's Upward Trend

Data provided by the Pew Research Center shows modest yet steady growth among Public Radio's news oriented stations. Data shows increases from 2015 to 2016.

Take a look at these trends. How does the data from your station stack up against the benchmarks established by national trends?  (If you need help with that, let me know.)

• Listenership if up 11% among the top 20 station.

• NPR programming is up 14%.

• PRI Programming is up 12.5%.

• Public Radio's digital presence is on the rise.

• PBS NewsHour grew 22%.

• Revenue went up at the national level for NPR and PRI. APM saw a decrease. According to Pew, "At the national level NPR increased its total operating revenue in 2016 to $213 million, up 9% from 2015 levels. PRI saw gains as well, rising 26% to about $22 million in total revenue for 2016. APM’s total revenue, on the other hand, went down 6% year over year, accounting for $126 million in 2016."

• Locally, earnings have been relatively flat.

• News oriented station increased investment in their news gathering resourced about 5% from 2014 to 2015.

• Viewership for commercial network news declined 1% to 24 million viewers.

• Cable news networks increased 55% to 4.8 million viewers.

• Newspaper subscriptions dropped 8% between 2015 and 2016. Subscriptions are up slightly since the election.

Searching for Sanity in News Coverage

In Praise of Journalism

More and more, I find myself searching for sanity in news coverage. I find myself recoiling from the bombast and daily assault of half truths and false statements.

There was a time when I would avoid the PBS NewsHour. It seemed so slow, so dry. I've come to appreciate the comprehensiveness and evenhanded approach to the stories. It comes down to trust.
I trust journalism...not punditry. So much of what passes for journalism is based on the exception. The comments and assertions are based on the exception to the norm...not on what is actually going on. The exception feeds on our fears and takes our attention away from real solutions.

After the recent election and the continued avalanche of misstatements based on sketchy sources, I find myself being a lot more careful about what I read. And if something turns out  to be incomplete, I appreciate sources that continue to dig.

Other trusted sources:

• NPR
• APM
• PRI
• Reuters
• BBC
• and an assortment of newspapers, magazines and sites that take the time to check their sources.

What was it that Ben Bradlee said? Something like, "Check all your sources twice, except for your mother, check her three times.

The News Cycle and Mutual Destruction

The News Cycle Fuels Funding 

In fundraising circles we often discuss the value of the news cycle and the ability to raise funds from listeners. During presidential campaign the public radio audience swells and membership dollars increase.  For public radio's core audience, the news from NPR, PRX,  PRI and APM offer a sanctuary of thought provoking and rational content.

It looks as if the news cycle may not take its usual post election dip. That should be a happy thing for public broadcasting. Then again, maybe not.

 As someone who lived through the Cold War and the threat of the Nuclear Holocaust, Donald Trump's tweets about the nuclear arsenal are not going down well. The need to be informed from a reliable news source will become more important.

Fake News Ups the Ante

Add to the mix the proliferation of fake news. A news story from a fake new site heightened tensions between Pakistan and Israel.  According to an article published by Huffington Post with sources included in the New York Times "Pakistan’s defense minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, wrote a frightening Twitter post in response to a fake news article stating that Israel would attack Pakistan with nuclear weapons." Asif's comments were in response to a fake story posted by awdnews.com quoting the Israeli Defense Minister that "If Pakistan send ground troops into Syria on any pretext, we will destroy this country with a nuclear attack." 

We are are closer to the brink than most people realize. According the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, we are three minutes to midnight, a global catastrophe. In 2012 we were five minutes to midnight.

Public Media will have plenty to report on and a steady, measured and fair treatment of the issues will be greatly appreciated by our core audience. By focusing on the core audience and their values the growth potential will continue to increase.

Duck and Cover

I'm part of that core, and I remember the drills at school, "Duck and Cover," and being reassured that we would be okay if the Menominee River Valley took a direct hit. Then later seeing the civil defense brochure about the circles of destruction and understanding at age nine that we were too close to the epicenter to survive, and understanding that if we did survive, we would likely die from the burns or radiation poisoning.

The theory behind the policy of mutual destruction was that nobody would be foolish enough to push the button. I wasn't reassured then. I am even less assured now. Public Media has a part in all this. No matter the platform, we must continue to meet the expectations of our audience. Public Radio news has grown up to be trusted news source among its audience. When we first started we considered to be boutique in nature...an alternate news source. There's no going back now.

This American Life / PRI Part Ways

Public Radio International (PRI) announced yesterday that it will end distribution of This American Life (TAL). According to the article in Variety, TAL has 2.2 million listeners and calls the weekly program one of PRI's most popular.

Details of why the show is being dropped are sketchy. PRI Executive Julia Yager states, “During our most recent negotiation, it became clear that our organizations’ expectations regarding our futures were different.” 

Yager said This American Life will continue to be distributed to Public Radio. Three possible sources, PRX, NPR and APM have not commented yet.

Listener Support

I'm getting ready for another fund drive. I volunteer my services at WNPR. I ask for contributions on the air for an employer that let me go. I do it because of a sense of loyalty to the people I used to work with. I do it because I think the information provided by public radio is important for promoting civil conversation in our society. I value the content from NPR, PRI and APM. I also value the content produced locally when done well. The local stations need funding to keep you informed regionally and nationally. I'm glad I can help.

The model I use comes from Audience 98 - The Stairway to Given.

1. Someone must be a listener or a user of the service. 
2. The individual relies on the service
3. The content or service must be personally important. (Personal importance and sense of community.) This is the idea that the content and the services are the ties that bind together people with certain shared values. 
4. Funding Beliefs – Users must believe their support is crucial. They must understand that funding from other sources is only a piece of the fiscal puzzle. Individual support is the most reliable source of income. 
5. Household income is a contributing factor in whether someone will give, but that it is not nearly as significant as the other steps of The Stairway to Given. 

People give because they rely on the service, find it personally important and believe their contributions are truly needed.

As more of public radio's audience switches to digital content on social media, the web and  mobile devices as platforms for their information, the question becomes can the listener service model be used to raise the revenue needed to support the services? 

John Sutton's recent blog asks Will Listeners Voluntarily Support Web-based Services? The impetus for John's question is the report in Current that corporate support for NPR was off by $9 million last year. NPR's Stephen Moss says the potential for growth in digital ad revenue is limited by competition and downward pressure on the price of ads.   Corporations and foundation support cannot be the only sources of income for public media. 

What's working? Are there examples within public media of successful revenue generation from users?

Can the system build on that success? I think we need to find those answers. I'm willing to help.

Summer Try-outs For Public Radio

I think it is great that new program ideas are getting a chance on public radio.


I come to this season of try-outs for public radio with a big question. With such short try-out periods for NPR's Ted, Ask Me Another, Cabinet of Wonders, and PRI's Q from the CBC, how are the networks and stations measuring success. It takes months (years actually) for programs to gain real, measurable traction with the audience. That was the experience with A Prairie Home Companion, All Things Considered and Car Talk. Car Talk and APHC were local programs before they went national.

In the late 70's and early 80's there used to be debates at public radio conferences about how to measure the audience. Programmers would argue that a letter represented 10 listeners and callers would represent five. Or was it some other number? It doesn't matter. The letter writer and the caller represented two listeners. The caller and the letter writer represented themselves and nobody else. Getting a call or letter meant somebody was listening. It did not measure audience size or the popularity of the program among those willing to contribute voluntarily.

The same holds true for Public Media responses. The numbers can be a lot larger. Several thousand likes nationally for a program is impressive...as far as likes go. The only thing being measured is the propensity of an individual to click the like button. Social Media is a great way to listen and engage. It is super for customer (listener) service. It does measure the appeal of a program for larger audience segments (cohorts).

Some measuring can be done because of PPM technology in the top 50 or so markets over a short period of time. But, a lot more data over a longer period is needed to get any sort of a trend.

Focus groups and surveys can be used. Surveys on Social Media are self-selected samples. And, if you've ever tried to make a programming decision based on focus group results, you understand that it is not fool-proof method for programming decisions. Focus group results can help inform decisions but, not give the final answers.

I think this is a legitimate question. How are the networks and stations measuring success for these programs? I'm curious. To be clear, I think it is great that new programming is getting a chance on public radio. 


You know what would really be great? A new public radio format aimed at a younger or, more diverse audience.

Positioning for PBS

PBS' President sees an opportunity for growth in presenting documentaries and the arts. Paula Kerger's vision is that public television can offer more of what is being abandoned by commercial cable channels.
In an interview with The Salt Lake City Tribune she outlines her ideas for the future of public television.
Kerger says, "So, again, it’s another opportunity if we’re really interested in making sure our country’s stories are being told. I think we need to be there."


Public radio has been doing that by providing services long abandoned by commercial services including in-depth news, intelligent entertainment programming, classical music and other music services. So has public TV. Kerger wants to do more. The difference is that the public television network does not create its own content. The stations are the primary provider of content for PBS.  NPR, PRI and APM provides content for member radio stations, most of public radio's most popular programs.

She's right. There is an opportunity. It will be interesting to see if the opportunity can be affordable and self-sustaining.

Fund Raising Made Easy?

I helped out at my local NPR station this morning asking for pledges. The task was made easier because the listeners clearly value the content produced by NPR, APM and PRI. All of that is complimented by the local and regional coverage provided by WNPR. 

Fundraising begins with the content. The content generates the audience. The more time the audience spends with the station (loyalty), the more likely they are to give. 

Jack Callahan and I provided the impetus for giving by working on the balance of fundraising messages. We did our best to create a balance of case statements and closes. We communicated with each other about what we were going to pitch. We listened to each other and played off each other to drive the message home. We connected ourselves to the programming.

I've worked on other fund drives where the fundraising wasn't as effective. The messages were lost because of too much emphasis on the closes, premiums, funding facts or poorly constructed pitch breaks. Other drives didn't go well because the content was not up to listener expectations. In that case, no matter what was done during the fund drive, pitching was ineffective. This time, this morning, at WNPR it all came together. It wasn't perfect. We could have used some production help but, it worked.

A Call For Fox To Help Fund NPR

An Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post by Steve Coll calls for commercial broadcasters and cable outlets, like Fox News, to fund public broadcasting. The idea is not new. I've heard the idea discussed since the early 8o's when I was studying Mass Communications. The idea is, a set aside from commercial broadcasters would be the best way to fund public broadcasting. This would help ensure Public Broadcasting's future and help it fulfill its mission to serve under-served communities.

Public Radio is grappling with this issue. Despite growth to about 30 million listeners in the past decade, public radio stations are looking for ways to increase diversity in its audience. Steve Coll included in his article the BBC's handling of criticism that its coverage was left leaning. BBC managers studied their coverage and did not find they leaned in any particular direction but, did find they were not covering stories that appealed to conservatives. According to Coll, the BBC solved their problem by broadening their coverage. Coll recommends a similar self-examination for NPR.

At the recent PRPD Conference in Denver, a panel that included representatives from the CBC talked about how they broadened their coverage to be more inclusive. (Panel: The Next Step Up: Inclusiveness -  Farai Chideya (Moderator); Keith Woods, NPR; Kashmir Birk, Bioss; Susanne Marjetti, CBC)   The CBC deliberately became more inclusive in their coverage to reflect the diversity of their communities served.  The panel members from the CBC their audience grew. Not just numbers, but also in diversity.

I strongly recommend this piece. There are many more ideas that can be drawn on to build a stronger Public Broadcasting system.


Steve Coll, a former managing editor of The Washington Post and a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, is president of the New America Foundation.

Bi-Partisan Panel Says New Jersey Can No Longer Afford NJN

An article published by newjerseynewsroom.com says New Jersey's bipartisan panel is recommending that the state can no longer afford NJN. They recommend that a private buyer be found and New Jersey get out of the public media business.
Read more about it here: http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/bi-partisan-panel-finds-state-government-can-no-longer-afford-operating-njn-tv-and-radio#

KCET drops PBS

KCET drops PBS, risks viewer loyalty to avoid $6.8M yearly dues

It's a risky decision indeed.

One of the questions we faced on a regular basis at Connecticut Public Radio was the high cost of National Programming. Was the programming really worth it? Could we cut our losses if we just cut a few of the really expensive programs like Car Talk or A Prairie Home Companion. It was even suggested briefly that Morning Edition was too costly. Couldn't we just cancel these programs to reduce our expenses? Surely there must be something almost as good that costs a lot less? If we do that can't we put some of the savings into local efforts?

Fortunately, we took a careful look at how our audience was using the station. I even wrote an article about it for Audience 98, Public Service Economics.

We used listener hours to determine how the audience was using our programming. We then compared revenue per listener hour against cost per listener hour to determine our return on investment. The three programs mentioned above generated a large portion of Connecticut Public Radio's listener hours. The costs per listener hour were more than offset by the way our listeners used the station.

For the sake of argument, suppose we took A Prairie Home Companion and Car Talk off the air to save $32,000 in 1998. Because those programs were carried by two other public radio stations, we would have lost most of those listener hours and the revenue they represented.  In 1998 Car Talk represented about $68,000 in listener sensitive income. A Prairie Home Companion represented about $110,000 in listener sensitive income. Listener Sensitive Income is a combination of the revenue from listeners, local underwriters and local foundations. The combined return on investment was $106,000.

These numbers are a lot smaller than the $6.8 million in dues paid by KCET. The number of viewer hours represented by KCET audience is a lot larger than the 56 million listener hours generated by WNPR.  KCET has probably put a lot of thought into their decision, but they are likely to lose several million viewer hours to the other PBS stations that serve the LA Basin. The drop in viewer hours will represent a drop in viewer sensitive income. The question is, did the viewer sensitive income offset the cost of the PBS programming?
Will the new local focus generate enough viewer interest to offset those costs?

Public Radio Exchange Pulls in Major Grants

PRX Raises $2.7 Million from Corporation for Public Broadcasting, MacArthur Foundation, and Ford Foundation

The grants include funding from:

• The Corporation for Public Broadcasting - $1.5million
• The Ford Foundation - $900k
• The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation - $300k

When I was PD and Director of Radio at CPBN, the content from PRX allowed us to present voices and ideas not necessarily available through NPR, PRI and APM.

It helped broaden the context of the issues and ideas that affected the communities we served. It was also a way for our producers to get added exposure for the work they were producing.

Peconic Public Broadcasting Gets Another Extension

According to and article in 27 East News, Peconic Public Broadcasting and Long Island University have agreed to another extension in PPB's efforts to raise enough funds to buy WLIU. Since they were granted the extension, I'm assuming PPB has made significant progress in raising more than $600,000 needed to close the deal.
The station is situated in the Hamptons on the east end of Long Island featuring local public affairs, jazz and public affairs programming.
If Peconic Public Broadcasting fails to meet its obligation, the station will be sold to the highest bidder. The rumor (not confirmed) is the highest bidder is a faith based organization.
Right now PPB is seeking matching funds for a George Soros grant. They're also working with a bank to get a loan for the remaining amount. The extension is for 25 days.

Colorado Republican Wants to Cut CPB

Colorado Representative Republican Doug Lambron says he is introducing legislation that would eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Details are in an article in The Colorado Independent. Rep Lambron says the country no longer needs this choice in a time when 500 channels are available through cable and other pay-for-use services like the internet. Pam Osborn, spokesperson for Colorado Public Broadcasting said in the article that 18% of the television audience still gets their TV "free" over the air. Many of them cannot afford $100 a month for cable or internet phone service. 

Can PBS and NPR be Self-Sustaining?

Lambron also said that NPR and PBS will survive without CPB. That day may be coming for NPR with direct funding from on-line and internet radio users. But, NPR is not anywhere near the critical mass needed to sustain itself. Most of its funding comes from member stations. Stations get some funding from CPB, some funding from contributors and some funding from underwriters. The article ignores other program suppliers like Public Radio International, American Public Media, WFMT and the Public Radio Exchange. PBS does not directly create any programming.

Public Broadcasting is Driven by Memberships

Membership contributions for public radio are driven by programming. Listeners send money to public radio when they rely on its service and consider it important in their lives. According to research from ARA (Audience 98), public service and public support are linked so tightly that listener support can be used as a proxy for the public service that causes it. Public support, like public service, is the product of two factors: the value listeners place on the programming, and the amount of listening done to the programming.

We found at the station I worked for the listeners who valued the station most (core listeners) were most likely to support us. Typically the core tuned in about ten times a week for a total of about 10 hours a week. On-line usage does not come anywhere close to that threshold, at least not yet.

Not a New Idea

This is not the first time cuts have been proposed. The Reagan administration actually cut funding in the 80's with a rescission of at least 50%. The recession came as the result of a flap over program content on PBS. The Reagan Administration wanted more control over the content.  Newt Gingrich later proposed "The Glide Path to Zero" where all funding was to be cut for public broadcasting. There have been other proposals. The most recent proposal came from the Bush Administration. Some states strapped for cash are proposing cuts. The stations hurt most by these cuts are the smaller stations, usually in rural areas.

A Change is Coming

The funding equation will change as listeners and viewers change how they acquire their content. According to what I’ve been reading, that change is coming in this decade. What that means for local affiliates is not clear. If NPR does find itself in the position where it can cut the local affiliates loose, the affiliates will have a difficult time supporting their coverage of local and regional issues. Most public radio listeners today come to their stations looking first for the national programming. Without those listeners, stations will find sustainability to be a problem. Funding local news on public radio will be difficult. In this case, new alliances and new funding models will need to be found in order for public radio and television to continue provide in-depth news and information programming.

UA-12112039-1

WFPL-FM launches environmental reporting collaboration

Public radio partnerships like the one announced by WFPL in Louisville help stations build on their strengths.
According to an article in Business First, WFPL is teaming with 18 public radio stations in five states to report on environmental issues in the Ohio River Valley. To create the initiative, WFPL also built relationships with three foundations and Hanover College.

The experience we had with other stations and foundations at WNPR to create these kinds of partnerships helped the station enhance it's content around the environment, health issues and, reporting and on politics in Connecticut's capitol region. The collaborations drew the public radio stations in our region closer together, even those with which we shared listeners. It also brought several foundations a platform for their community service issues. The network of community service oriented non-profits was enhanced by these alliances.

I must note there was clear firewall between the funders and the news content. Through regular communications with the funders, WNPR was able to satisfy the foundations' needs. High quality reporting was making the public aware of the issues near and dear to the station's funding partners. We also found that these collaborations raised the bar for regional reporting among all of the stations involved in the initiative.

There's more about how public media can become involved in community service alliances at the National Center for Media Engagement.

Another Station Changes Format

WETS-FM is changing formats to news and information. The reasons given by Station Manager Wayne Winkler include:

• Fulfill the mission of the university and of WETS-FM
• The best interest of the station, its listeners, and its financial future
• Fewer people are tuning to radio for music
• Offering the community a dependable news source

More information about the change is included in an article published today by TriCities.com

You can read the article here.


There are two big reasons. They are improved community service and financial stability.
And...This does present the opportunity for somebody else to adopt the Classical and Americana formats.

WDUQ's Uncertainty May Make Them Stronger

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette has published a thoughtful and hopeful article by Adrian McCoy about the future of WDUQ in Pittsburgh. The strength of WDUQ's community support may make it possible for WDUQ to support itself. The help of Public Radio Capital an organization with previous experience with this type of situation, might make it possible.

The article sites a similar situation on Long Island at WLIU. I think WDUQ is in a much stronger position. The Pittsburgh station already gets 50% of it's funding from members and gets considerable support from corporations. They have robust audience figures. And, they have very little competition for the NPR news they offer (plus program offerings from Public Radio International and American Public Media). WLIU is starting from scratch. Listener Sensitive Income at WLIU was almost non-existent before the sale of the station to Peconic Public Broadcasting, and their fundraising efforts are still short of what they need. WLIU's audience is small. And, there's plenty of competition for the NPR news audience from WSHU and Connecticut Public Radio.

Also important to both stations is their community service. Local programming can create networks of support throughout their communities if done well. I think it was Audience 98 that concluded, "Community service begets community support." The formula worked for us at WNPR. 

WGBH Changes Leads to Dissent

The negative blow-back that WGBH is getting from listeners about the recent program changes is to be expected. In a way we in public media enable a sense of ownership over the programming through our membership campaigns. We ask listeners to become activists when we ask for their support, and they become invested. Despite the fact that ratings, loyalty figures and support dollars may be below what is needed to sustain programming, there those who did invest who will feel alienated by the changes.

Take a look at the article from the Boston Herald By Daniel Gerwetz and then drop down to the comments. Recent changes at KUT in Austin and WDET in Detroit have led to similar protests.
You can make changes for all the right reasons, but for some listeners those reasons won't matter. They're felling a sense of loss and betrayal. Management and the major stakeholders need to be prepared and be able to weather the storm.

To be sure there are other issues surrounding the changes made by WGBH. Not the least of which is the question; is there room for two public radio news and information stations in the Boston market. WBUR is well established as the NPR news station. WBUR's ratings are four times that of WGBH according to the Herald article. WCRB's ratings were three times that of WGBH. That made their NPR news service and classical music service second choice among both audiences. Being second choice directly affects the stations ability to raise listener sensitive income. In a down economy difficulty raising listener support is not a comfortable position to be in.

Grow the Audience - Using the Basics

Using the Basics to Regain Audience
WNPR changed formats in the summer of 2006. Within the first six months the audience started to show strength. Loyalty figures were up. The weekly Cume was up and the average audience started to rebound. We also saw a jump in underwriting support. Then in late 2007 we started to see evidence of a leveling off in audience figures and then a decline in 2008.

Time For Change
Changing the program strategy at WNPR resulted in audience growth. The changes made in the summer of 2006 resulted in about a 20% increase in total audience and about an eight percent growth in average audience. The early growth was the result of the newness of the format in Connecticut. Up to the summer of 2006 nobody else was offering most of Connecticut the NPR news and information format. WNPR was the first to do so.

The changes were dynamic and dramatic. Accomplishing the changes were challenging in the face of healthy skepticism from senior staff, certain stake-holder in development and, the Board of Trustees. They questioned the need for change when the bottom line at WNPR was still relatively healthy.

There were signs of weakness in the longstanding hybrid format of NPR News, Classical Music and entertainment programs like  A Prairie Home Companion, Car Talk and Wait, Wait! This formula had worked well since 1989. Why change? Loyalty figures were slipping, WNPR's dominance over other public media outlets was eroding. Membership was flat and trending slightly downward. Underwriting booked exclusively for WNPR was weak. Most of the underwriting on WNPR was sold as part of a package that included CPTV and Connecticut Magazine. WNPR had over 20,000 contributors, but the majority was radio and TV combined. Major donors for radio were almost non-existent. We had less than 100.

The Glass Ceiling
Research consultants told us in 2004 and 2005 that we were reaching the glass ceiling. The potential for growth had plateaued. Predictions were for a gradual decrease in audience and member support in five years. Among the issues facing WNPR was the lack of unique programming. The picture wasn't entirely bleak and desolate. Working in our favor was a very strong news department, and a well established daily talk show produced in our New Haven Studios, The Faith Middleton Show. The rest of the program schedule was duplicated by two very strong public radio stations WFCR and WSHU. Added to that WNPR had very little geography that was exclusive. Almost everything we did was duplicated by these two stations.

Declining Market Position
The decline came much quicker than anticipated. WNPR's main transmitter failed during an ice storm in late December 2004. Replacement parts were not available and had to be custom made. 90.5FM was at half power for six months. Making the situation worse was an engineering mistake in the design of the structure supporting WNPR's satellite dishes. Connecticut Public Broadcasting moved to a new facility in the summer of 2004. The dishes were placed on top of the new building. Because the supports were under-engineered, the dishes would blow around knocking them slightly out of alignment. The results were garbled signals from our national programming sources. It took many months to sort out the structural issues. During this period we were beginning to see declines in average audience, share and time spent listening. The catastrophic failure of our main transmitter pushed WNPR over the edge. WNPR lost 70,000 listeners and membership support declined 12%. After the transmitter was repaired the audience did not come back. The audience found the programming they wanted just as satisfying on our competitions' stations.

Justifying Change
The changes we made in 2006 came after some intensive research into the listening habits of our membership. The research was conducted by Arthur Cohen and Whole Station Solutions, and Peter Dominowski and Market Trends Research who did most of the call-outs and helped us design our survey. The results of the survey did not result in a certainty that we should change our programming focus. That was because, in large part, we surveyed members who were classical imperatives, classical/news imperatives and news/classical imperatives. We wanted to know the impact of the decision to change programming focus. The evidence suggested this was the right direction to take for WNPR's future. Many of the stakeholders still needed convincing, and even a year after the changes there were still doubts that we had made the right decision. The doubts rose mostly around the response of the membership.

The growth in audience came quickly but, there was rift in our membership universe. Members of the Board and senior management were anxious because positive results were not immediate. Fortunately, the growth in underwriting more than offset the declines in member support. Membership bounced back in the second year.

An Audience Slump
In late 2007 and early 2008 we started to notice a decline in audience. Total audience, average audience and share declined. Our share fell from above 3.0% to about 2.6%. We were not sure what was happening. We still had market exclusivity for NPR News and Information. Morning Edition and WNPR's daily news program, Where We Live, continued to show audience growth and strength. The declines were clearly evident middays during All Things Considered and weekends.

The Decision for Gradual Change
Instead of pulling the trigger on wholesale program change, I decided to focus on micro-formatics. I listened to and analyzed what was being said in our midday, PM and weekend breaks. At issue was the lack of structure within those breaks. We were not taking full advantage of the opportunity for quarter hour maintenance. Our promotional schedule was filled with diagonal promotion strategies. We were spending a lot of time promoting to programs that did not have much impact on our audience.

Vertical and Horizontal Promotion
With the help of the PRPD handbook and because of my own experience in programming, we got better at the basics. We used a lot more teasing. Since midday programming did not allow for a lot teasing about what was coming up in the next 20 minutes, we chose to focus on the next program or the program after that. Teases were placed first in the break. Produced promotions focused on the programs that drove our core audience. Those programs were Morning Edition, Where We Live, the Faith Middleton Show, All Things Considered, Marketplace, and the weekend hits. And, whenever possible we employed horizontal promotion. We made an effort to highlight what was coming up the next day at the same time.

Positive Gains
WNPR gained back audience. There were gains in the weekly audience (Cume), average audience (AQH), and share in Hartford, New Haven and New London. According to Arbitron and The Radio Research Consortium, WNPR's Hartford Cume rose 19.6%. The AQH grew 17.1%. WNPR's Share in the Hartford Metro grew 17.8%. Audience figures compare summer '08 and summer '09 and are Monday through Sunday from 6am to Midnight for persons 12+.

Not all of the growth can be attributed to micro-formatics. Staying the course with the program schedule gave the audience time to find and grow loyal to WNPR's offerings. But, paying attention to the basics certainly helped.

A special thanks to John Dankosky and the rest of the staff at WNPR for helping accomplish the changes made at WNPR and their patience and, their support of WNPR's break and promotional strategies.