
Why NPR is Thriving (They’re Not Afraid of Digital Media) - madh
http://www.ikiw.org/2009/04/25/why-npr-is-thriving-theyre-not-afraid-of-digital-media/
======
jdminhbg
I'd imagine the government subsidies and not needing to pay for their chunk of
the FM spectrum probably have a lot to do with it, too.

~~~
AndrewO
The subsidies are quite low, actually. NPR itself only gets between 1-2% of
its funding from the government.

Member stations average about 11% from the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, which is government funded. The rest comes from listeners during
those annoying, but necessary pledge drives, private grants, and corporate
sponsorship (and I can tell you from experience, they place _a lot_ of
constraints on what they'll say in that underwriting spot you pay for).

Details here: <http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html>

~~~
tjic
This is blatantly false, for reasons I'll explain below.

Also, you're conflating NPR (NPR, Inc.) with member stations. These are
different entities.

The topic is NPR.

The numbers that you cite are not numbers for NPR.

They are not even number for NPR member stations.

They are aggregate numbers for public broadcasting stations ... _including
those not affiliated with NPR_.

Getting the truth out of NPR's reports can be tricky. They haven't filed an
annual report in four years, and the financials are split up between NPR,
Inc., the NPR foundation, the CPB, and various member stations. You have to
read a LOT of documents to figure out some of this stuff.

Let's start with NPR's financial documents.

    
    
       http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2008/fy08nprincreport.pdf
    

I note $2.5 million in membership dues (individual donations) out of $172 mill
total. Thus, individual subscribers and pledges make up 1.45% of NPR's budget.

$68 million comes from station programming fees. What are these? These are
fees that local affiliates pay to National Public Radio, Inc. Where do those
dollars come from? A typical affiliate gets two thirds or more of its budget
from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The CPB is a shell corporation /
funnel that connects federal dollars to NPR with a cut-out step. See the CPB
financials here:

    
    
      http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/budget/
    

The CPB gets $400 million per year from taxes, takes 10% off the top for
operations, and funnels 90% of the money to local affiliates, which then
funnel most of the money back to NPR.

The data that you cite about the sources of funding are not for typical NPR
affiliate stations: first, it includes many stations that aren't NPR stations,
then it excludes many stations that _are_ NPR stations (they mention this in a
footnote).

Where else does NPR get its revenue? Grants, contributions, and sponsorships
total $52 mill. Let's be generous and say that half of that comes from private
sources (in fact, most of these grants are coming from other government funded
organizations).

A big contributions to NPR's top line is from the NPR Foundation, which gave
15 mill in 2008. ...but look back at the 2005 numbers, and it was just 1.7
mill. Why the huge (1,000 %) increase in money from the NPR foundation? Read
the NPR Foundation's reports and the Consolidated reports

    
    
       http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2008/fy08nprfoundationreport.pdf
    
       http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2008/fy08consolidatedreport.pdf
    

and you can see that _they've been investing in highly leveraged hedge funds
and interest rate swap contracts these past few years. To put it mildly, this
doesn't look like sustainable money._

Putting aside the non-sustainable NPR Foundation money, the federal government
makes up $90 mill of NPR's after-removing-the-Foundation revenues of $152
mill.

So, where does NPR get its money?

* federal dollars: 60%

* individual contributions: 1.5%

* advertising, misc: 38.5%

~~~
frossie
_A typical affiliate gets two thirds or more of its budget from the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting_

Can you source this statement? My local affiliate, for example, is 63% funded
by individual contributions.

Not that I disagree with the overall point - organisations that are publically
funded (NPR, BBC, CBC, etc) are more likely to put their IP out there for
everybody and to do non-sexy reporting. I see this as an entirely good thing
and possibly one of the best uses that my tax money is put to.

------
GavinB
The interesting point for me here is NPR's revenue model. They're supported by
tasteful sponsorships and donations, and they give their content away. They're
more successful at this model than any website that I can think of.

They are the one traditional news outlet that isn't damaged by changes in
distribution methods. The only change might be that they need to spread their
pledge drives out more broadly so that it's harder to skip or tune out.

~~~
tjic
> They're supported by tasteful sponsorships and donations

They get 50% of their budget from taxes, and most of the "tasteful
sponsorships" are large companies that either get large subsidies from the
overnment, or work under lots of government regulation and want to buy favor
with congress.

The largest sponsor of NPR is Archer Daniels Midland, an agricultural
corporation. Want to know why Scientific American is talking about how food
shortages could kill tens of millions over the next few years?

[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-
shorta...](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-
shortages&page=4)

It's because ADM has been using its NPR sponsorship to buy access in
Washington, where it can push biofuel mandates, turning food into a poor
substitute for gasoline, thus boosting the price of it beyond the reach of the
global poor.

------
geofffox
Is someone in an alternate universe? From Friday's NY Times:

"In a new round of cost-cutting, National Public Radio said it would lay off
13 employees, eliminate contributions to employee retirement accounts for the
rest of fiscal 2009 and impose five days of furloughs for all employees before
the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30."

No one--not even NPR can monetize their audience to pay for programming.
Programs like "All Things Considered" and "Prairie Home Companion" are
dependent on an expensive infrastructure and staff.

I work in 'old media' and the problem for businesses and employees alike is an
eyeball on the Internet is worth less money than an eyeball on TV or ears on
radio. As we move people to our websites we do so at our own peril. We can
afford to produce less for an Internet than TV viewer.

I am no Rupert Murdoch fan, but he put it best when he pointed out ad space on
the Internet is unlimited. Therefore there will always be downward pressure on
advertising rates.

In the short term this isn't a big deal for end users. In the long run people
will realize much of the news and entertainment programming we all enjoy (not
all and not necessarily the best) will no longer be produced.

~~~
murrayh
Billboard space in our universe is unlimited (in the same sense as ad space on
the Internet is unlimited) as well. Not all locations are equal, and hence
there will be competition for the best locations.

------
eli
NPR may be "thriving" in terms of audience size, but just a few months ago
they canceled a show and announced layoffs due to a lack of funds.

------
mahmud
NPR is thriving because it manages to be the best information source in any
medium. It's not the economist, but it's informative, entertaining, cultured
yet very humane. The Saturday programming alone forces me out of bed early;
Weekend Edition, Car Talk, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, This American Life, Studio
360, Market Place, On the Media and All Things Considered. You just can't find
that anywhere.

TV and regular media have no chance. Commercial FM radio is just obnoxious and
loud. I'm shocked and offended every time I get my car back from a borrowing
relative and have the preset on some loud annoying jockey. American television
.. best left unsubscribed to. Its best hours are 5PM to 9PM of the Sunday Fox
programming; when it shows animated shows, which can now easily be watched on
Hulu.

For those of you who read the Economist, I can recommend Mother Jones to
balance out the right-wing nuttjobery that pervades the otherwise excellent
publication.

------
njharman
Is NPR really considered "mainstream-media"?

To me "mainstream-media" means the big for-profit corporate conglomerates.

I bet not needing to make a 10-15% profit has much to do with it. Not only
monetarily but also integrity("no worries a show/statement will alienate
advertisers") and public perception. In fact I'd wager the not afraid of
digital is a symptom of being a NPO.

------
garyrichardson
NPR makes up about 50% of the podcasts I listen to. I've been able to plug my
ipod into my car for 4 years now. I never listen to the radio (music or talk)
at all any more.

I mostly listen to Science Friday. They're constantly pushing alternative
interaction methods, like second life and twitter. I always figured it was an
attempt to engage 'the kids' into science.

------
eli
Also, they're not afraid of getting replaced in a shareholders' revolt.

------
jgamman
arrgghh the graphics hurt my brain... memo to self: gotta stop reading tufte

