"NPR stations have been given an enormously valuable asset, i.e., spectrum, for free. They can and do make money from this asset by selling corners of the spectrum to digital data services. They can make money by selling commercials, as nearly all NPR stations seem to. Even with no tax dollars or donations, shouldn’t an NPR station be financially unsinkable? They might not be able to pay executives $400,000 per year, but it should be more profitable to keep the station going than to shut it down, since they get their #1 asset (the spectrum) for free. What am I missing?"
Suggestion: disclose the budget during the programming breaks. Show how much PBS has, how much does it cost and how much they have to get from advertising in order to make ends meet. That way, donors can make informed decisions knowing that when the needle is back in the green the commercials will go away.
I'm semi-alright with them moving towards four commercials per hour (every 20 min would be better). One thing I hope they do not do, as other stations have done, is place those ridiculous promotions (often for other shows) in the bottom corners of the screen, covering vital information such as a interviewee's name, location, and other text, etc.
This is sad indeed, however as someone who downloads my media instead of subscribing to advertising-infested cable, I don't think this is going to impact me much more than reducing the length of the show by a couple of minutes.
You certainly don't see BBC Horizon going this route, I wonder why that could be. </sarcasm>
IMHO this is going to kill personal donations and "silent" foundation/corporate donations because who is going to see them as a worthy non-profit entity after this point?
Also, they could more easily lose congressional funding once they demonstrate this model of income.
Very sad day for US culture.
Just imagine the news about something nasty the oil or coal industry just did and then there's a cut-away to a commercial from big oil telling you how wonderful they are.
Or commercials in the middle of Nova and Antique Roadshow.
Actually, they aren't adding -more- commercials, they're just moving them around. Instead of an almost 8 minute commercial break after a show, it'll happen in 4 shorter segments during the show.
As the article says, this is to combat the mass exodus that occurs after each show, which makes it hard to interest the viewers in the next show.
I'm not sold on the reasoning "to build an audience for the show that follows". We are moving towards an age of "on demand" programming where viewers choose what they want to watch when they want to watch. This is a misguided attempt to hook the viewer onto the next show, at the expense of interrupting the current show.
I had the same gut reaction when I saw the headline, but concur -- the article makes it clear that this is a move to adjust when the same material is presented, not the introduction of new advertisements in the program.
As a consumer of such things I certainly like the uninterrupted viewing, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm not likely to sit around for the content at the end.
The average hour-long program is 40-45 minutes once all the commercials are removed. Think about that, up to 1/3 of scheduled show is dedicated to advertising. I'm sure if you go back 10-15 years it was 1/4 and before that it was 1/5. This doesn't even count the inshow advertising that goes on.
It seems to be a sensible idea, I agree. But like government projects, sensible ideas tend to metastasize.
I disagree.
Speaking of PBS Nova specifically, the shows are 56 minutes (give or take 3min) long once commercials are removed.
I know this because I download my media and the commercials are removed for me so all I do to see how long a show is, is look at the remaining-time in VLC.
I wasn't speaking of PBS, but of normal network television. PBS shows usually run up to the mark or just a few minutes short to allow local stations to run their own advertising.
You really think that they will stick to "short" segments?
Or do you think there is going to be mission creep just like there used to be one commercial before PBS Newshour but now it goes on for like 4-5 of them?
So get people used to the 4 segments (ie. this report about the new oil spill brought to you by Chevron) then over time claim budget has doubled and double/triple the number of commercials?
They're already losing congressional funding, and are constantly under threat of all govt funding being pulled. How real that threat is - not sure in all cases, but there's always a lot of posturing on the issue.
I'll posture a bit and say I'd like to see public funding of the airwaves in the US - radio and tv - continue.
Why not just mandate cable providers pick up a small portion of the tab instead of going through the Federal government? FCC could make this happen over-night, in relative terms.
Why not just mandate citizens donate a small portion of their income to charity instead of getting federal funding? The IRS could make this happen over-night, in relative terms.
That's actually kind of what is happening in the United Kingdom. Television owners are required by law to pay a so called 'TV Licence' which is mostly spent on funding the BBC.
I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not but the fact is that the BBC is simply the best public service broadcaster in the world and they achieve that without any commercials (in the UK) at all.
> I'll posture a bit and say I'd like to see public funding of the airwaves in the US - radio and tv - continue.
I'll posture a bit and say that I'd like to have you pay for the things that I like instead of the reverse. (Don't tell me how little it is unless you're cutting me a check for that amount.)
they could more easily lose congressional funding once they demonstrate this model of income
Couldn't you extend that same logic to all efforts by PBS to secure donations or reduce costs as well? PBS shouldn't get too many donations because they could lose congressional funding if they're too good at it. PBS shouldn't cut costs because if they spend less, Congress won't give them as much money...
Very sad day for US culture. Just imagine the news about something nasty the oil or coal industry just did and then there's a cut-away to a commercial from big oil telling you how wonderful they are.
PBS has accepted commercial underwriters for decades.
I don't understand why they have to go from zero breaks to four per hour. Why not just one or two? A break every hour is not too bothersome and sometimes convenient or even welcome. A break every half-hour is sometimes disruptive but not too bad, and certainly understandable if the programs are only an hour to begin with. But an interruption every 15 minutes and the fragmentation starts to become irritating, even if the promotional content is not as offensive as typical television advertising.
This is one of my biggest fears, aside from PBS going away all together. Commercials I an deal with for the most part.
I don't mind that sort of programming being on TV, but it seems to be slowly taking over all the formerly prestigious cable channels like History, TLC, etc.
I was raised on PBS, it's been there for me when I couldn't afford cable, and now with more and more schlock on the TV it's one of my last refuges.
I donate when I can, but I still worry about their funding being cut. Then who knows what sort of compromises they'll have to make.
I'd like to see them try to go without government funding. Could they maintain the same standards with just donations and small commercial spots?
It would be an interesting experiment. As a kid who grew up with only 3 TV channels and one of those PBS, I have a soft spot for it. My child watches PBS Kids. They really have some excellent and entertaining children's shows.
There has been advertising on PBS for a long time.
I have a four year old at home. Chucky Cheese is on constantly at the end of each show. We don't turn away b/c usually we are waiting for the next show to come on.
PBS streams a lot of their content. There is zero advertising on the (pbs kids) web site (that I have seen).
I agree it's a sad day in US culture, but did anyone really suspect otherwise? How long can you really stay on air in this day and age commercial-free?
"NPR stations have been given an enormously valuable asset, i.e., spectrum, for free. They can and do make money from this asset by selling corners of the spectrum to digital data services. They can make money by selling commercials, as nearly all NPR stations seem to. Even with no tax dollars or donations, shouldn’t an NPR station be financially unsinkable? They might not be able to pay executives $400,000 per year, but it should be more profitable to keep the station going than to shut it down, since they get their #1 asset (the spectrum) for free. What am I missing?"