 |
 |
|
|
Institutional Growth, New Leadership, and Big GiftsBy Susan HarmonOver the last thirty years, the steady drumbeat of public radio’s institutional growth has been punctuated by the significant impact of big gifts. Without them, we might still be a small collection of educational radio stations funded primarily by colleges and universities. Without them, we might never have reached the level of audience service that now generates annual contributions from individuals and corporations—on-going gifts that have spurred incremental improvements in all that we do. But unless we are content with reaching only twenty million people in this country, it is time for major expansion in public radio service. That will require a new cycle of major investments, one that both builds on our history and reflects the changed environment—and changed opportunities—we face today. To accomplish this, we must make the links between institutional growth, new leadership, and big gifts. Our most critical advances have been funded by big gifts from the federal government. A boost came in the early 1970’s when CPB made grants to about 100 disparate stations—grants that have been sustained and expanded and that have defined us as a "qualified" system. These were followed by CPB’s investment in a program network, grants for the satellite interconnection service, major challenge grants to a handful of stations (about $1,000,000 per station available over five years), various training, research and development grants as well as the current CPB Program and Future Funds. We have also received important facilities grants from the U.S. Department of Commerce to extend and develop our services. More recently, major investments by foundations, corporations and individuals have fueled capital campaigns for outstanding, state-of-the-art facilities around the country as well as program development at NPR, PRI and a few producing stations. Just as the federal government has been a ripe "major giver" for public radio over the last generation, these newer big givers will be critical to our future. Institutional Growth Institutional growth occurs when we establish a more dynamic relationship between our stations and the environment in which they operate. For example, when we connected the stations with the first "live" daily program, All Things Considered, listeners immediately had a new way of relating to our service, more people tuned in, and our institution grew. The placement of the satellite system was the basis of institutional growth once we began producing programs from around the country. For years we have acknowledged that two or three stations in a market increase the appetite for public radio. MPR took the most aggressive stance on that issue by purchasing a second station in Minneapolis-St. Paul so that one station could feature news/talk and the other classical music. With this move, MPR took advantage of cost savings of operating two channels under a single management, expanded the reach of their institution, and immediately became more important in their community. If we committed ourselves now to having top-performance, multiple-channel delivery in every community served by an SRG station, we could immediately increase the capacity of our collective institution and the importance of public radio in America. In our SRG activities this year we are already focusing on Chicago, Denver and Dallas, where to add a second channel we must obtain airtime on another station, either through station purchase, LMA or by buying airtime. In markets especially conducive to our audience profile, such as Boston, Seattle and Washington, D.C., we could concentrate our energies on having three, top-performance stations that sort out talk and music formats more systematically and that make public radio a more important enterprise in each of those cities. The goal of maximizing channel delivery in all of our communities represents dramatic institutional growth for SRG stations and is a compelling case. It is a sensible solution for reaching new audiences since stations crammed with two formats have simply topped out. No matter what we do, some part of the audience is always dissatisfied. We know how to operate these channels effectively. We have more research available than ever before to help us schedule well. We have excellent programs available, but not carried in major markets because of gridlock in our distribution system. We have the know-how to run the stations, but lack the capital and, in many cases, top leadership with the motivation to carry out such a grand plan. New Leadership The growth of public radio has been stimulated by professionals at our stations, at station groups such as SRG, at CPB, at networks, and in fewer, but highly effective situations, by civic leaders on governing boards of networks and stations. The important role of all of these leaders is demonstrated throughout SRG’s sphere of influence. However, the quality of public radio’s leadership is limited because we are not sufficiently connected with civic leaders in America who volunteer more of their time and give bigger gifts to other non-profits, groups that in many cases reach smaller constituencies and have less community impact than we do. Only a few SRG members operate under the direction of a board that pushes their CEOs and senior managers to think bigger and to broaden their public radio services. But without engaging these public trustees and people like them, we will not be able to take public radio to the next level or to assure public radio’s long-term institutional stability as an expected feature of public life in every major community—like the museum, major performance company, or university. We also have not yet challenged some key decision-makers to think about the future of public radio with us. These include some of our university presidents who are still, after all this time, puzzled by the presence of public radio on their campuses, lack routine contact with the person who administers their station, and may never have been presented with a different ownership/management model than the one they have always used. These include CEO’s of joint radio-tv licensees and their board members who are only just beginning to analyze the future of public radio strategically and to see the growth potential of their radio services. We must capture the attention of these leaders—both top professionals in parent institutions and top civic volunteers— because we need their ideas, their help and their investment in a shared vision for multiple-channel delivery in all of our communities. If we are serious about developing a multiple-channel delivery system, we must work with them on a detailed plan of action that includes various approaches to raising capital. With this as our goal, we must move ahead speedily on several fronts. First, we must attract and utilize new leadership at all levels of our operations. For example, a key outcome of the Leaders Partnership of five SRG stations (WBEZ, WBUR, WRKF, WUWM and Vermont Public Radio) and their collaboration with consultants Results Group International is that these stations have worked with new leadership to raise their major giving by significant amounts. Comparing 1997 to the previous year, these five stations, as a group, have increased their gifts of $1,000 and above by over 60 percent. We are now refining the lessons we have learned from the Leaders Partnership. Working with our consultants, Results Group, we will train another 12 SRG member stations in recruiting and utilizing volunteer leadership for major gifts during 1998-99. These efforts, coupled with efforts at other SRG stations where capital campaigns or major gift work is in play, should result in much more know-how within SRG for establishing creative partnerships with powerful people in all of our communities. The more teams of us who understand how to do this and the value of the effort, the more effective we can be when we start raising capital for bigger ideas. Secondly, we must develop an exciting case for having top-performance, multiple-channel delivery in our communities and begin testing that case with critical constituencies, such as university presidents, foundation heads and leaders on our boards and in our communities. Based on their reactions and willingness to help, we could be successful in mounting a major, coordinated effort for increased service by SRG member stations. In the interest of expanding our public service, this is something important that SRG stations could do together. Big Gifts An abiding theme of much of our research is that listeners and donors usually think more of us than we do ourselves. The Leaders Partnership and our capital fund raising experiences suggest that by using our personal time differently, we can obtain major gifts from people who listen to and love us. Just by knowing this much, we should gain confidence about our ability to raise capital for multiple-channel delivery. As we think about our potential, we should also review what we know about the steps for capital fund raising. The process is not that mysterious, but depends on the quality of the case and of the leadership for getting the job done. To design an SRG campaign for multiple-channel delivery, we would have to follow a pattern something like this:
Conclusion Building on our history, we make the link between institutional growth, new leadership and big gifts. Our first step is to agree on a vision of having top performance, multiple-channel delivery in all of the communities. By accomplishing this, we could achieve remarkable institutional growth for public radio. Since SRG membership stations already represent a third of public radio’s audience nationwide, our success will have tremendous impact. If this is our goal, we should immediately begin making our case to the best minds and top leaders at our licensees and in our communities. It will take tremendous energy and teamwork (raising money in the private sector is much more time-consuming and costly than getting grants from the government). The pay-off will be, however, a dramatic increase in public radio services for the American people. December 22, 1997 Updated June 15, 1998 | |
 |
 |
 |
