ISTM that PBS is the only station/network around that consistently features in serious in-depth discussion of major (& minor) issues, versus the call-in drivel that seems to dominate commercial radio talk shows. I know of several conservatives who consistently listen to it for this reason despite its liberal slant, for this reason. (Including my wife, so that I sometimes listen to it myself if the car radio happens to be set to it.)
Question is why has no enterprising radio person tried - in the same manner as private enterprise in other fields - making some bucks by putting out an even better version of it, with higher priced talent/features and more resources supported by commercial advertising? Here’s what I can think of:
[ul]
[li]The existence of PBS is itself a hurdle to private competitors, since it has sponsors. As such, a private competitor would have to raise enough revenue from ads to match the sponsorships and then to pay the extra needed to raise the bar on quality.[/li][li]This is magnified by the fact that the segment of the population which is interested in intelligent discussion is too small to support any major expenditures anyway, so that the amount that PBS can raise by sponsorships is close to - or possibly more than - what the commercial market could produce.[/li][/ul]
Granted, I stipulate to being completely ignorant/uninformed on the subject, but my gut feeling is that, if there’s no ‘for profit’ version of PBS Radio, it’s probably because there’s nobody high up enough in the ‘food chain’ who actually believes that they can make money on it.
I think it’s a (sadly) very limited market for that sort of content.
I know you specify radio but look at TV and how all the originally intelligent and arts oriented programming (History, The Learning Channel, Bravo, A&E, etc) became an endless parade of reality programing about rednecks, wedding dresses, C-tier celebrities and families with 55 children. Start off smart then realize that there’s no money in it.
Honestly? Probably because of people like me. If my options were PBS radio and dead silence, I would ‘turn the dial to the right,’ as the saying goes. There probably aren’t enough people who don’t think like me to make such a station viable.
Sorry, it’s a saying the host of a radio program I do listen to likes to use. He’d say something to the effect of, “If you don’t like what I’m talking about, turn your dial to the right,” meaning to turn your radio off.
I wasn’t under the delusion that it was a common saying, for the record. Just a saying, one which I did not make up myself.
Because that content is moving to podcasting instead.
Dan Carlin’s Common Sense is an example of pure contemporary, political content, attempting to monetize and be for profit. He has his own discussions and invites guest speakers as well. He used to be on AM radio.
This area, too, is dominated by NPR–Science Friday, Radiolab, American Life are all programs that have political angles to them (along with history, science, contemporary issues).
We’re moving toward these things being paid for by crowdfunding and advertising, not corporate entities like radio stations or television networks.
While I’m being long-winded, there’s also the Radiotopia experiment, a non-profit producer of podcasts that relies on NPR and public funding, private donations, and other non-profit foundations.
I’ll put in a good word for The John Batchelor show, a commercial program which runs 4 hours nightly. Mostly conservative political commentary, but he will also spend a full hour discussing a book with an author, usually on a historical topic. Some sample shows are at: http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcasts
How many radio receivers even have dials any more?
For the only radio I have that still has any rotary controller, “turning the dial to the right” means “turn up the volume.” Which is an odd thing to tell someone who doesn’t agree with you: “If you don’t like what I’m saying, make it louder until you agree with me or your eardrums blow out.”
There were entire cable channels, like Discovery, TLC and the History Channel, that originally offered PBS-like programming. Commercial pressure eventually pushed educational shows out in favor of cheaper stuff that brought more viewers.
I imagine a radio station would be in a similar situation. Slowly but surely dropping shows that don’t get listeners, ending up with little more than vitriol call-in stuff and Coast-to-Coast AM.
Plus, there’s a limited market for something like Fresh Air and Wait Wait. NPR has a pretty strong market share already.
Sort of related : Air America radio was started as a way to have a liberal talk network to counter the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. They struggled for a while and only lasted from 2004 to 2010. A few of their people went on to success elsewhere such as Rachel Maddow.
PBS is subsidized. A commercial enterprise has to be profitable enough to turn a profit that more than exceeds the amount of subsidies, as well as exceeding the number of tax-deductible donations than PBS receives.
If PBS weren’t subsidized, it wouldn’t last either. The market for what people should want is very much smaller than the market for what they do want.
There’s an economics concept called the principle of minimum differentiation. Essentially, when competing for a limited customer base it can be rational to maximize profits by being as similar to your competition as possible. Here’s a paper that explains how this applies to for-profit radio markets which must sell advertising to survive.
If varied (or even intelligent) content is the goal, this is evidence of market failure. If you want different kinds of content, it needs to be financed in a different way.
What do you mean?