Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmanfrin | Hacker News Reader

I really appreciate NPR. They truly try to embetter their offerings. It's nice that we have a source of news that is not beholden to advertisers or corporate interests (although the number of 'This content was made possible by donations from...' I hear at the end of the larger shows is a bit worrying).

I just wish Says You would release their episodes as a podcast.

View on HN

I was going to put this into a thread below re: public vs. private NPR APIs, but it seems more relevant here.

Content programming fees are NPR's main form of revenue. When your station WXYZ holds a fundraiser, you donate to them, not to NPR. WXYZ pays NPR on a sliding scale. A station with 1 million listeners pays roughly 10x what a station with 100k listeners pay. NPR is actually barred from accepting donations directly, again "bypass". (NPR can take big one-time gifts, like the Joan Kroc $250M).

Stations pay the biggest dollars for the big "tent pole" shows (Morning Edition/All Things Considered) and this supports many other program and functions. In the FM world, stations have basically had exclusive distribution right. Digital changes that, of course, and creates the "bypass" I mentioned below. This is why you've never seen a ME/ATC podcast (I'm the anonymous answerer here: http://www.quora.com/Why-does-NPR-not-offer-All-Things-Consi...)

It's very possible (and was being discussed) that since listeners are logged on, NPR One could know if you're a supporter and suppress the pledge drive.

The challenge is that NPR and it's stations are still tethered together by the governance model. No one can "go it alone" without some changes, they'll either weather disruption together or fail together.

I'm generally aware of much of this, but it suggests an interesting argument about economics, in general. Pay according to ability, "tent-pole" products (these exist in for-profit services and retail as well), etc.

I love the intention of making the shows affordable and peg costs to a per-user basis. The reality in the U.S. is that big urban markets like NY, Boston, SF, LA, Washington, etc. are flush with cash, while stations in in small rural markets struggle to make ends meet. If federal assistance to CPB dried up, it's these largely underserved rural markets that would go dark, not big cities.

Truth on the rural markets, though I suspect running those translators is pretty inexpensive. I've got to say, having made more than a few cross-country trips, that finding myself within range of an NPR station rather than just very tired C&W, bible, right-rage-wing talk, or Mexican radio is a blessing.

Disclosure: I work at NPR.

The cost isn't just for the translators however - most of our stations also produce content themselves that is local, and many produce their own shows as well. Those are not small investments, but a smaller audience in a rural area means fewer people to raise support from. Our Alaska stations actually band together to help keep radio going across Alaska, though population is thinner.

Says You is an independently produced program. They sell individual episodes on their website for a very modest $0.95. You can always listen for free each week on your local station, or through the WGBH stream.

http://www.saysyou.net/zencart/

>It's nice that we have a source of news that is not beholden to advertisers or corporate interests (although the number of 'This content was made possible by donations from...' I hear at the end of the larger shows is a bit worrying).

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing, ain't it? The vast majority of NPR's funding comes from advertisers, excuse me, underwriters.

Edit: Well fuck me I'm wrong. Carry on, citizen.

> The vast majority

No, it doesn't. From what I can see, it's more like 17%.

http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

17% from corporations, but also count foundations if you're looking for underwriters overall, not just corporate interests. Probably also universities and "other" for 41.6% That's still not even remotely close to a vast majority, of course. And I think there's a qualitative difference between getting funding from an organization that wants to increase its bottom line and one that wants to create a more just, verdant, and peaceful world.

"a more just, verdant, and peaceful world"

Well that sponsorship was obviously well-spent!

I recognize the phrase and can even hear the hosts speaking it in my head... but I couldn't tell you the name of the sponsor. I'm sure it'll come to me.

Macarthur foundation. Most famous as being givers of the "genius grants". Founded by the people that owned Bankers Life Insurance.

The largest part is syndication fees. You're seeing a pie chart about public radio station income, not NPR's income. See further down on the same page, in which it is indicated that 37% of unrestricted NPR income is from program syndication fees.

"Program fees and dues paid by our Member Stations are the largest portion of NPR's revenue. This includes fees paid to air the NPR newsmagazines, other programming we produce and distribute and annual member dues." and

17% is for member stations. In the NPR chart, corporate sponsorship is 25%. I'm not sure if this includes the 17% of 37% that they get from member stations, but I would assume that it does not, thus getting the amount of corporate money in NPR's own revenue to about 31%. Nowhere near vast majority still, even if we assume that "other revenues" and "grants and contributions" may have some corporate money too. I see no way it could be over half with any sane set of assumptions unless I'm completely misinterpreting the data in these diagrams.

The vast majority of NPR's funding comes from member stations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com