Blog: 
Aug
Jul
Jun
Apr
The Public Radio Paradox
Mar
Feb
It's pledge season for the local, publically-supported radio station, which means that every hour
of broadcasting is marred by impassioned pleas for donations. Everybody (and by that, I mean
absolutely everybody) hates these nattering interruptions. Even the voices of radio
personalities seem to ooze with veiled embarrassment as they solicit funds. Recognition of
listener annoyance has inspired organizers to tweak the rules: they now promise to quit asking
for money the moment they reach their financial goals. The earlier you give, the sooner the
drive will end. Fork over some cash and the torture will cease.
We interrupt this important public broadcast to ask if, brother, could you spare a dime?
This Might Hurt
With this new policy, public broadcasters have tremendously changed the interplay of incentives.
Before, pledge drives were just a seasonal business necessity. By agreeing to shut up after crossing the
finish line, the station admits that pledge drives irritate. This is a painfully honest announcement,
offered with the sheepish tone of a sympathetic nurse. "This is going to hurt, but it's necessary,
so let's get it over as soon as possible."
Private stations never include a mea culpa along with their advertising. Stores and restaurants
don't post signs that explain how they wish they could charge less, if only it were possible. I've
searched the literature of other non-profit organizations, and have yet to find one which openly regrets
asking for donations. But public broadcasters interrupt their own programming, beg for money, and then
effectively apologize for the interruption. Across the entire pantheon of commerce, I can only find
one other example of people who show contrition while engaging in transactions: beggars. The plight of the
impoverished may be society's greatest responsibility, but it's not the best place to find viable business
models.
Broadcasting is One-Way Only
These weird dynamics mostly derive from the nature of broadcasting, not public funding. You can't
install a coin slot on a one-way medium like radio. You could theoretically advertise the pledge drive on
other stations or mail out thousands of flyers, but there's no better way to target a public radio
fundraising campaign then to send it out directly to public radio listeners. You're stuck wasting
people's time, and now, apologizing for doing so.
To continue enjoying the chocolate-coated voice of Garrison Keillor,
please insert 25¢.
Naturally, there's only one philosophical reason to fork over money to a worthy cause: it's
the right thing to do. We might make donations out of guilt or to get someone to leave us alone,
but fundraisers everywhere spend most of their time appealing to our sense of civic duty. There is a
public value in the public service, and you ought to contribute accordingly. Listeners of public radio
all know: don't be a freeloader.
The listener, on the receiving end of the broadcast system, wallows in anonymity. Donate at the beginning
of the pledge drive and you still have to wait until the end for the annoying chatter to stop. Tune in
for another season without paying and nobody will know. Now that the station promises to clam up once
the goal is met, you might as well hold out as long as you can stand the repeated exhortations for your
hard-earned cash. If others lack your endurance, the station stays afloat at no cost to you.
The economics of listener incentive have changed in the wake of the "we-quit-when-we-reach-our-goal"
policy. Before, pledge drives ran for a set interval, with the implication that if the target was not
met, the station would go off the air. Fear motivates, and listeners call in with credit cards at the
ready. Deadlines ensure that people will feel individually responsible. Without them, there is no reason
to rush. Somebody else will step up, eventually.
The One in Ten Solution
As part of the pledge drive chatter at WFYI, listeners
are regularly told that only one in ten of them ever make a donation. To the guilt-ridden freeloader,
this information has the reverse effect intended by station fundraisers. Not giving money puts you in the
majority! Almost everyone who enjoys public radio keeps their checkbook closed, and the new policy
ensures that annoyance of the pledge drive will be managed and minimized by the generosity of a few.
It's a great time to be a cheapskate.
The non-paying 90% must be the source of therapy-inducing frustration for public radio employees. The
freeloaders listen, and therefore obviously value the service, but apparently not enough to make a
contribution. But why should they? Public radio survives, year after year, without a cent from the
parsimonious majority. Now, the annoyance of pledge drives ends sooner. To those who never donate,
they have every incentive to continue not to do so.
To inspire the freeloaders, the rules must change. Those 90% of listeners know that somebody else will
carry the station during the biannual fundraisers, and this vast majority is willing to endure the chronic
discomfort of pleas for donations. What if a public radio station set an audacious goal, one aimed
squarely at the non-paying masses? What if they ask for donations not to offset the next six months
of overhead, but to establish an endowment so that the station never had to run a pledge drive
again.
The Pledge Drive to End All Pledge Drives
A campaign of this magnitude might seem like a pretentious and ill-conceived proposal. Under the
conventional techniques of public radio pledge drives, you might need ten times as much of
everything-ten times as many volunteers to answer phones, accountants to process bills, and minutes
of airtime begging for money. But the potential outcome is as transformative as the suggestion is
insane: a single trust fund giant enough to run the station off a conservative annual return. If
it worked, public broadcasting would never be the same.
The station and its listeners, like many organizations, are deadlocked in a network of
counterincentives. Almost nobody pays for public radio because almost nobody has to; and self-admission
of the annoyance of asking for money only cements this distinction. Running an ubër pledge
drive is a serious suggestion, but it's not the biggest challenge. Understanding the motivations of
stakeholders and designing a model that benefits everyone requires exceptionally clear and intentional
thinking. Misunderstood conflicts lead to chaos and frustration. An undiagnosed incentive becomes a
paradox. We end up in uncomfortable, almost intractable situations. Public radio fundraising is stuck.
Getting unstuck means shaking free of assumptions. Getting unstuck means deeply analyzing the personal
motivations and individual factors which drive the machine. But sometimes, for all its flaws, the
model we are stuck with is good enough. Public radio does flourish with regular pledge drives
that annoy 100% of listeners but convince 10% to donate. Unsticking could change everything, but it
may not be a change we are ready to make.
Further Reading:
Would you like to leave a comment?
Read this.
###
