Making Election Coverage Real

Are real needs being lost in the election rhetoric?

Here's a list of what really matters to working Americans.

The South Central Federation of Labor in Wisconsin polled a wide variety of Wisconsinites including middle class, working class, small business owners, people with jobs and the unemployed. They wanted to measure the importance of the "Right to Work Bill" to Wisconsinites.

Right to Work did not make the cut. What Did?

• Raising wages
• Maintaining quality schools
• Basic community improvements
• Job training opportunities
• More affordable education
• Good housing

What would have more impact in news coverage? What would make for positive outcomes? What coverage would engage the community? The six points above would have a meaningful effect on the community. Or, do we let others set the agenda?

As journalists, we owe it to our audience to continue to bring these issues up. I live next door to one of the poorest cities in America. Deep poverty and joblessness bring with it all sorts of issues. The solution was presented as building a new stadium and commercial development funded through city taxes. The local public radio station and the local paper are going deeper.

With pending budget cuts and layoffs in Connecticut and Hartford, there will be plenty of stories. Many of the cuts are coming at the expense of the most vulnerable...those who would benefit most from the list above. Public radio's audience is filled with the people who have the resources and the inclination to do something about these issues.

Go deeper...Think audience!

Covering Issues and Ideas

Transcending Geography

This article is not about local vs national coverage. It is about getting the most out of what stations can offer locally. Thinking about coverage from the perspective of the listener will help guide the focus of your content. It is an argument I made for years in music programming. It is an argument that often fell on deaf ears. That is, until we found ourselves creating barriers between our programming and the audience we were hoping to serve. Change came about slowly, but I like to think at WNPR we learned our lesson. It bears repeating.

Users of public media transcend local. Research I was a part of at Connecticut Public Broadcasting demonstrated clearly the world perspective public radio listeners have. This worldly view is not just a phenomenon in Connecticut. Broader research conducted for the public radio system through The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), The Public Radio Program Directors Association (PRPD) and others demonstrated the preference of public media users to look at issues from a broader perspective. The Sense of Place Study clearly pointed out that local coverage for the sake of being local was not an effective use of the media's resources.

Covering Issues

At WNPR we decided in 2006 when looking at format change to look at the issues and ideas that defined where we live rather than geography. Part of reason was pragmatic. Connecticut is governed by over 160 town governments. The attitude in Connecticut is that the issues in Hamden have no relationship to the issues in Waterbury. Or, that's in Hartford...not here. The thinking in the system at the time was to center coverage on a region like Chicago, New York or the Twin Cities. Connecticut did not have a regional center. Focusing on one area would make WNPR local and irrelevant to much of the state.. We decided to look at issues and ideas from a much broader perspective.

Others are taking this approach. WAMU recently announced they would realign their news coverage to key issues rather than geography. The key areas of their coverage will be Transportation and Development, Education and Inequality, Race and Ethnicity, Power and Influence, and Arts and Culture.

WUWM in Milwaukee is also covering news from an issues perspective. The news drop down  menu on  their website reveals coverage in the Environment, Economy & Business, Politics & Government, Education, Health & Science, World, Arts & Culture, and Project Milwaukee. Station Manager Dave Edwards mentioned that this approach is working out well for his station.

A Lucrative Decision

The decision at WNPR to focus on issues and ideas proved beneficial to the audience and the station. Increases in audience and loyalty followed. The launch of Where We Live by a very talented staff highlighted and enhanced coverage engaging the stations audience, Opportunities to develop partnerships in the community followed and so do did funding opportunities.

A Collaborative Effort

CPB announced in February a collaboration they are funding for regional coverage among several stations in New England. The geographic coverage will focus on issues and ideas. According to a release from Vermont Public Radio, "The New England News Collaborative (NENC) will produce multimedia coverage focusing on the region's energy usage, climate, transportation infrastructure, and its people and immigration issues. This robust partnership will produce dynamic reporting projects for on-air broadcast, digital and web presentations, and a series of public Town Hall-style meetings centered on issues facing New England and its residents."

WNPR will run the collaboration which will depend on the talents of reporters and producers across the New England states. The stations involved in the project are Connecticut Public Broadcasting Network, WBUR,Maine Public Broadcasting Network, New Hampshire Public Radio, Vermont Public Radio, New England Public Radio, Rhode Island Public Radio, and WSHU Public Radio.

Beyond Seed Money

The ability of the stations to keep the project going after the grant runs its course will depend on how willing they are to play nicely with each other. Certainly, the coverage will present opportunities for growth on all platforms. It will be up to the station to use the content to leverage partnerships and funding opportunities and put that revenue back into the partnership. It can work. 

Interesting Distinction

Each day I learn something new. Today I was researching C3's and C4's.

501(c)(4) organizations can engage in unlimited lobbying so long as it pertains to the organization's mission. 501(c)(3) organizations are not permitted to engage in political activity, endorse or oppose political candidates, or donate money or time to political campaigns, but 501(c)(4) organizations can do all of the above.

Why is this interesting?

I worked for a C3 that hired a lobbyist to promote itself. Is this okay as long as they are not engaging in political activity and merely indulging in self promotion. The non profit was hoping to garner grant money from the state from the state and promote its case among the legislators.

Fund Drives - Had Enough?

I Really Shouldn't Complain...

I must have been responsible for over 100 drives in my public radio career. That makes me the root of all evil. I know how it goes. I know the pressure from corporate management to raise more. Radio ran surpluses, but we were all part of a larger company. The much larger goal became much more difficult when certain departments continually oozed in red ink. When this happens year after year...things should change.

The Heat is On

Every two months my local public radio station holds a fund drive. At least it has been that way since October. There was a drive in October...another in December, and now another in February. Then, of course, there will be the Spring drive in April, and the end of the fiscal year bash in June. Five drives in nine months! They've been doing it that way for years.

So What's the Problem?

Non-profits need to be careful about the impression that their in this business to raise money instead of providing a public service. Promising stuff like we can lop off a day in June if you pledge now is of little consequence. Recruiting sustaining givers may even out the revenue, but the number of campaigns remains the same. The listener is not going to remember the promise to shorten the fund drives. Or...They won't believe it either as soon as the next drive begins. The impression is of relentless fundraising.

It doesn't matter how short the drive. To the listener...it's a fund drive and listeners hate them. No matter the length, from the listener's perspective, the on-air drive is interrupting what they came to hear and what they've come to rely on hearing. PPM data shows that public radio stations lose half of their audience as soon as stations start asking for money. In the past, listeners have come back after the drive. That was before the impressive growth of other listening platforms that allow listeners to pick and choose what they want without listening to the drive. In the meantime On-air fundraising is becoming less efficient.

The collateral damage to a station's audience is immense. There's a quote from ARA that states raising money with on-air drives is a lot like trimming your toenails with a shotgun. That's not far from the truth. Look at the numbers. A Station with a weekly CUME of 200,000 holding a two week drive may get 3,000 pledges.  That's 1.5% of the weekly audience.

There's Got to be a Better Way

Slugging it out with the audience over a week or two is tiring and counter productive for the station and the audience. There are people out there that can help take the pressure off the on-air drive. Talk to them. Learn from the examples of others. Use all the tools that are at the station's disposal. For on-air drives leverage the audience early and get out.

Successful fundrives begin with the station's programming. Stations need to consistently appeal to their audience with content that meets expectations. Programming that disappoints causes tune-out and reduced loyalty. The best marketing and fundraising strategy is useless without effective programming. They go hand in hand.

Finally, remember that on-air drives are programming. The drives should be as good or better than the daily programming. Think about the drive from the listener's perspective...not the station's. The station's needs and goals mean nothing if you cannot put those needs and goals in terms of listener benefit and positive outcomes from the perspective of the listener.

Think Audience!

When to Post (Using Social Media)

It matters...

Why?

Maximizing reach is essential in a fractured marketplace. That fracturing is already having an effect of listening. The effects are far reaching according to NPR's Research. Statistics cited in a Washington Post article by Paul Farhi points to a decline in listener-ship among the audience that's under 55.

Perhaps more troubling are the broader demographic trends. NPR’s signal has gradually been fading among the young. Listening among “Morning Edition’s” audience, for example, has declined 20 percent among people under 55 in the past five years. Listening for “All Things Considered” has dropped about 25 percent among those in the 45-to-54 segment.

The implication is that the tent poles (Morning Edition and All Things Considered) continue to appeal the audience garnered in the 80's. That appeal is not so strong among audience segments 54 and younger. 

What About Appeal?

Maybe Morning Edition and All Things considered, created by boomers to appeal to boomers is getting old like its audience. Another consideration is that the rush to create local programming to build content stations could call their own may be pulling down the tent poles. Is that content building audience or driving audience away? Local programming for the sake of being local is not valued by the public radio audience. If that were the case, all those podcasts being offered would be wildly successful. They're not. Local content has to match the expectations and values of public radio's audience no matter the platform.  Radio works best when there is a consistency of appeal.

And what about midday programming in general? The appeal of national offerings has not been consistent with the appeal of the tent poles. It doesn't take much to convince a potential loyal listener to tune away. The problem is magnified by the thousands of offerings on newer platforms.

Don't Throw In The Towel

People are still using radio.  According the Nielsen, 93% of Americans are tuning-in. News/Talk continues to be the top format. The top formats among listeners 25 to 54 are Top 40, Country, and Adult Contemporary. The key public radio is to find out where it's younger demographics are migrating. As Nielsen acknowledges, the audience is shifting to digital platforms.

In the meantime...

Tighten up your programming. Listen to the way you sound. Take a critical look at promotions.

Let them know you're still here. You're still listening and you're still engaging. Promote on the platforms they're using. Allow users to access what you're offering on their terms. 

It matters when and how you post. I've been looking around for ideas on when I could make the most of my postings on Social Media. There are lots of ideas waiting for you. Some in public radio have hired experts to help with postings. Others don't have the resources to hire somebody dedicated to managing social media. The information on effective posting is out there and easy to use. 

Fast Company has some interesting infographics they published in 2014. Among the advice given...

• POST ON FACEBOOK DURING THE AFTERNOON SLUMP
• SCHEDULE TWEETS FOR LUNCHTIME
• NO ONE IS CHECKING LINKEDIN ON A FRIDAY

Does 2014 seem dated? There are others offering information about best practices for posting. Hubspot offers posting advice on their site. For instance: 

• The best time to post on Linkedin is Tuesday through Thursday during working hours. 
• The best time to post on Instagram is anytime Monday through Thursday except between 3:00pm and 4:00pm.

I still think what we offer matters. The ground is shifting below our feet, but the sky is not falling. I remember the stickers that used to be on the windows in the control oft the first public radio station I worked for. It said...

Think Audience!

So Embarrassing

So here's the headline...

'Downtown Abbey' Begins Its Sixth And Final Season

Of course NPR meant "Downton Abbey." I have to admit, the first time I saw the title I thought it should be Downtown Abbey. That's before the program really took off. I had not watched it. I thought it would be something about a gritty inner-city church. That assumption was really off.

I don't care to reveal how many times I made a silly error in my time while writing and editing content for public radio. Listeners were always quick to respond. Some of them were critical. Others over the top. One even said that I had torn the fabric of public broadcasting with my careless error. Listener expectations are high. 

Mistakes like this are easy to fix...before they're made. That's why I used to be so embarrassed when something like this happened.  I feel empathy and a little embarrassed for whoever did this. Laugh at yourself. Resolve to step back a moment before hitting enter. 

This too shall pass.

Public Radio Partnerships: Strength in Numbers

If I had just one wish for Public Broadcasting it would be more collaboration and less competition within the system. We would be so much better at serving our audience if we just found ways to work together.

Unified Vision

When I first came to New England, I was working with several stations on a project that looked at better serving our audiences locally and collaborating regionally. The premise of the regional collaboration was to better serve the public radio audience up and down the I-91 corridor with a high quality service meeting the needs of the region. Despite honest efforts, it never came to pass as stations focused on their own issues without drawing on the experience of others.

The collaborative spirit was replaced by competition and distrust. 

There have been some hopeful efforts recently funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Three notable collaborations include stations along Ohio River Valley, A News Initiative in Indiana and Alaskan energy issues. The hope is these collaboratives will motivate others to do the same.

Earlier Efforts

I was involved in previous efforts. Most notably, the Environmental Initiate at WNPR, a collaborative with solid funding that involved several stations in the Northeast. Once the grant ran down, the stations were unable to sustain the regional effort. Shared funding was suggested based on listener hours, but nothing re-lit the collaboration. I also assisted in the Kentucky Public Radio Network collaborative. KPRN is still going strong and involves several of the stations working together in the Ohio River Valley project.

These partnerships are like any intense relationship. They take work and compromise to keep them together. The pay-off is higher caliber content that has a stronger appeal to the public media audience. They also have the advantage of pooled funding and shared costs.