
NPR decides it won’t promote its podcasts or NPR One on air - fezz
http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/03/npr-decides-it-wont-promote-its-podcasts-or-npr-one-on-air/
======
yyyyyak
"Legacy business" or not, I believe that listening to local public radio makes
me a better citizen of my city. NPR needs to do everything it can to keep the
local stations alive because it's not just the nationally popular programming
that matters. Honestly, my local NPR station, WNYC, is the only remotely
intelligent source of local news. Where else am I going to hear Andrew Cuomo,
Bill de Blasio, and other influential people having a frank discussion on
important local issues? The only alternatives are random internet blogs, NY
Daily News, and Fox 5, and some crazy right wing talk shows in Jersey.

I don't see any problem with doing what it takes to keep these stations alive,
even if it means that Ira Glass can't tell me to download this American Life
using iTunes (which I already do).

~~~
dantiberian
I don't know a ton about public radio in America, but I'd bet that WNYC is one
of the most well funded (they produce Radiolab, among others). As discussed in
the article, most local stations are just republishing NPR content, not
creating the kind of great content you're talking about.

~~~
Amezarak
> As discussed in the article, most local stations are just republishing NPR
> content, not creating the kind of great content you're talking about.

All public radio stations I know of do republish NPR content, and that's
usually the bulk of their programming, but I live in a very poor, conservative
state and the local public radio station has local news and many other local
programs. I can't imagine it's different elsewhere.

In fact, a quick look at the schedule shows all the programming from 8:30-12
on weekdays is local programming, with different shows on different days. If
the affiliate in my state can afford that, I can't imagine others can't.

------
levemi
We're still stuck in that in-between zone where legacy businesses from the
last century are in the fight for their lives while everyone with half a sense
can see the future is digital distribution.

This struggle is a generational one. Older people are used to their TVs,
radios and newspapers and seem as a group unwilling to transition.
Institutions on the wrong side of this fight like cable companies and cable TV
stations, radio stations, movie theaters, local news TV networks and local
newspapers haven't made it easy for them. Younger people on the other hand
don't even bother.

And that's how you can see the writing on the wall for these obviously legacy
businesses. By being unwilling to fully commit to the future, because they'll
make less money, they'll upset existing relationships, they'll die.
Blockbuster died a quick death. The transition from video rentals to online
video was sudden and quick, because Blockbuster didn't control the content and
couldn't lock in viewers. This kind of end will come for all these other
places too though as younger generations have different expectations. They
want their content on demand, and they want it on any of their devices and
they want it without having to subscribe to expensive bundles of junk they'll
never consume.

The problem for how to provide the same high quality local content that these
legacy businesses can sometimes provide is a real problem that hasn't been
addressed yet. AOL's patch was a very innovative and high quality way but it
lacked adoption and was unsuccessful. I think we may have to see the old
guards die and endure a short period without high quality local content before
it can rise again.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I don't disagree with your overall point, but I don't see how cross-marketing
is a requirement for a media organization to be "with it" in your book.
Honestly, radio is a shitty channel through which to market your podcast. A)
you already have a captive listener, and b) they're probably driving, or are
at work, in which case they're not really well positioned to subscribe to a
podcast. Their hands are probably full.

I don't see what's wrong with tailoring your marketing strategies. Market a
podcast in the venue where people are looking for podcasts: on their phones,
in social media.

~~~
disc
> radio is a shitty channel through which to market your podcast

Maybe I'm just not the average NPR listener, but any time I have terrestrial
radio playing, I'm highly subject to interruptions (eg., the end of my drive,
a meeting during my workday, etc.) I always almost find an opportunity to
resume the broadcast (via podcast) helpful.

~~~
snaily
Right, the benefits of podcast over radio are easy to explain.

The parent post's point is not that it is hard to market over radio, but
rather that it is hard to action on the advertisement, since the listener
likely has their hands full.

------
fernly
I listen to local NPR station often and I had never ever heard of NPR One. So
I went to one.npr.org and I'm no wiser. It's a white page with a logo and a
completely undocumented audio-play widget. I'd say the "don't talk about NPR
One" rule extends to NPR One.

~~~
omginternets
Try downloading the app. I was very pleasantly surprised with it. Actually,
that's an understatement: I _really_ like it, although it may come down to a
matter of taste.

~~~
fernly
Thanks for the suggestion. However, it is not my habit to listen to stuff with
my phone. I have an iPod Nano that I use to listen to music and podcasts while
running (much lighter as well as less breakable and stealable than a phone);
and when not running, I'm at my computer with iTunes running. But clearly
anyone's MMV.

------
sien
I listen to a number of NPR podcasts and don't live in the US.

I used to live in the US and donate to my local NPR station.

It's strange that on every podcast episode they don't suggest a way for me to
contribute. Other successful podcasts like The Guardian's highly entertaining
Football Weekly podcast also suffer from this.

I'd like to contribute something sometimes. I've bought t-shirts from podcasts
that suggest that (Planet Money, 99% Invisible) and am happy to do something.

Also, the ads on podcasts are not well targeted. I've heard of Squarespace...

It's remarkable that there isn't a good clean way to put ads into and better
monetise podcasts.

~~~
wyldfire
> It's strange that on every podcast episode they don't suggest a way for me
> to contribute.

On NPR one app, they do occasionally have a "donate now" opportunity and their
pitch ends with "we're looking forward to connecting with you...". If you're
not using that app, then you might be hearing content that NPR syndicates but
if they raised money it wouldn't be for your local station.

You can tell NPR went to some pains to integrate local broadcasting in their
app.

If NPR-one hassled you with every item, it would get old fast -- some of the
news clips are just over a minute or two long.

------
Aloha
What this article doesn't seem to explain is how NPR is supposed to monetize
its content via podcast or NPR One - currently monetization is handled by the
local affiliate via pledge drives, then paid for by subscription upstream. It
seems to me that promoting NPR One would draw revenue from local affiliates -
without replacing it elsewhere.

~~~
cookiecaper
Aren't local affiliates an artifact of an outmoded content delivery system
(terrestrial radio)? I understand that it's sad to have the local affiliate
hurt, but I think the age of affiliate broadcasting is drawing to an end. It's
something that will become a larger issue in the mid-term future, IMO.

~~~
parfe
Local affiliates are independent stations with their own production
departments. Some shows get picked up for national syndication (e.g. Car Talk
from WBUR, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me WHYY, On The Media WNYC, Prarie Home
Companion by Minnesota Public Radio ) while other shows might target the local
market which won't make sense as a national broadcast.

Local affiliates can cross license content directly between each other, or
from NPR, PRI, BBC, American Public Radio, and Public Radio Exchange, etc.

Local affiliates are not simple repeater stations, as you seem to believe.

~~~
eli
I was under the impression that most local affiliates do not produce any
content licensed by anyone else and just license content from other sources.

~~~
palidanx
In the Southern California market, we have two big NPR stations (KPCC and
KCRW). Both stations actually produce a lot of their own radio shows, and
supplement some nationally syndicated content.

When I visited Oregon, I noticed most of the shows were nationally syndicated,
and I suspect that might have to do with how much money they can get from
their local regions.

------
Philadelphia
Apparently not true in the way this article suggests, according to the NPR
ombudsman: [https://t.co/6B3NKLPH6B](https://t.co/6B3NKLPH6B).

~~~
dublinben
Real link, without the unnecessary Twitter tracking:
[http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/03/18/470876553/w...](http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/03/18/470876553/why-
npr-changed-how-it-talks-about-podcasts)

------
timr
Wow. Those are some seriously self-righteous tweets.

There's a delicious irony in people using the canonical example of
unprofitable social media to criticize NPR's decision(s) to prioritize its
lucrative distribution network over the free-media flavor of the moment. Say
what you will about NPR, but the affiliates pay their bills.

I don't know if this is the "right" decision, but I'm willing to wager that
NPR will be around long after Twitter has filed for bankruptcy. Distribution
the top challenge for any product, and NPR's distribution -- and therefore,
primary value generator -- happens because of its large affiliate network. It
isn't a "tax" to invest in that system. Unless digital distribution is self-
sustaining, it's the other way around.

(Edit: I just got a downvote before my comment was visible. Not sure how
that's possible, unless someone is systematically down-voting my comments...)

~~~
Outdoorsman
>>I don't know if this is the "right" decision, but I'm willing to wager that
NPR will be around long after Twitter has filed for bankruptcy. <<

Let us hope so...anyone attempting to produce quality thoughtful content on a
consistent basis should be encouraged at every opportunity...

------
jessaustin
OK so now I've installed NPR One, thanks!

Recently I've enjoyed the "NPR News App". TFA didn't mention it, but it is
really well done. That sort of app could easily be a neglected afterthought.
(Example: pretty much any other app with an "old media" brand.) It's obvious
that skilled people care for this app. It looks good, it's not complicated, it
has a large variety, and you get to the audio content quickly.

------
sheepleherd
If the public pays for NPR, why doesn't the public own the output? ie, why no
Creative Commons licensing? Plenty of stuff on the internet is free; NPR is
not free, we ALREADY paid for it.

I would appreciate comments about the Creative Commons aspect of this, not
quibbles about line items in the budget.

~~~
ceejayoz
For the most part, "the public" (i.e. taxpayers) _doesn 't_ fund NPR. NPR
receives no direct federal funding.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding)

~~~
sheepleherd
You are making a strawman argument, I didn't say "the public" meant taxpayers,
I was talking about the "the public" in National "public" Radio and the
"public" Broadcasting System, and the federally funded Corporation for
"public" Broadcasting.

And in any case, your clarification is baloney, you are either being fooled by
NPR's accounting sleights of hand, or you are helping to propagandize it.
Federal money does in fact flow through public broadcasting's network of
"shell" companies such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to local
stations to and then to NPR. Here is an article on PBS.org about Congress
potentially cutting funding to NPR. [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-
house-votes-to-cut-np...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-house-votes-
to-cut-npr-funding/) Yes, that was 2011, but the same baloney about NPR not
receiving direct federal funding was the story back then too.

In any case, my argument that the works of public broadcasting belong under a
creative commons license is referring to the same public that the stations
bray about endlessly, "you the listener".

~~~
ceejayoz
> According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come
> from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution
> charges. Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge
> drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational
> institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting
> (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal,
> state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants,
> and 14% of their revenue from universities. While NPR does not receive any
> direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants
> from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the
> Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's
> overall revenues.

So, still a small (10%ish) portion of their budget even if you count the
government/CPB-derived portion of the revenue from member stations.

If a small amount of federal funding meant they had to make everything public
domain, they'd probably just give up that funding and make some cuts. No one
wins there, IMO.

~~~
VLM
"If a small amount of federal funding meant they had to make everything public
domain, they'd probably just give up that funding and make some cuts. No one
wins there, IMO."

Well, except the public, but they are never a concern in these decisions. Just
a cash cow to be milked.

Not just picking on NPR, PBS has exactly the same problem. The folks who want
to educate the world want to upload entire legal episodes to youtube, but the
business folks in charge of the local stations don't want to go out of
business, so...

~~~
ceejayoz
> Well, except the public, but they are never a concern in these decisions.

I don't think the public would win from an NPR/PBS belt-tightening.

------
Houshalter
My local NPR station plays nothing but classical music. I think because it's
the cheapest stuff to broadcast, just filler content. They do the news at
certain hours, but most the time it's music.

~~~
dublinben
It's funny you say that, because my local NPR station actually stopped playing
classical music entirely. They spun it out into a standalone classical music
station in order to focus on providing more news programming.

------
rat87
I highly recommend the Planet Money podcast

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/)

------
Kapura
But can it stop promoting podcasts on NPR one?

~~~
jahmed
Ha yeah. I know NPR One you don't need to remind me that I'm listening to NPR
One constantly.

------
nathancahill
Now if they'd just stop their pledge drives..

~~~
jzwinck
I like NPR so I donated once. From that day forward they sent me dozens of
letters in the mail asking for more money. I suspect they spent my entire
donation amount spamming me.

I didn't want to agree with you. But you're not wrong.

~~~
kasey_junk
You almost certainly did not donate to NPR, but rather to your local public
radio station.

Those local stations run the gamut of sophistication. My local public radio
station for instance (WBEZ in Chicago) is very, very good about not sending
mail you don't want. They have an easy to use internet enabled monthly giving
program and a pledge drive free internet stream for donors during the pledge
drive.

But they are one of the biggest stations in the country and have the
production dept. to back that up. Other stations are little more than adjuncts
to the local college's telecomms program.

The difference between NPR and your local public radio channel is not
understood by most people, but it gets to the heart of the point of this
article.

