Sadly, it’s not so much the enemy without we have to fear as it is the enemy within. 

Recently, I heard an individual say that it was difficult to make the case for the importance of music and cultural programming on public radio. Unfortunately, this individual is highly placed in one of the organizations that produces cultural programming for our stations!

If the people who are producing cultural programming have difficulty making the case for its importance, where does that leave those of us who work at the station level?

I think it’s clear that we have a problem within our industry.

Public radio as it was intended to be is in danger. Today we have a culture in public radio that is very much like our commercial counterparts. The topic of concern in management meetings is not “how do we fulfill our mission,” but rather, “how can we get bigger ratings and make more money.”

I understand that there are situations in which market forces may dictate a change in programming—if, for example, there are two stations in a single market doing the same thing, then it may make sense for one of them to change formats. But we all know that in many, if not most, cases, the decision to reduce or eliminate music from the public airwaves is the result not of market forces, but rather of personal agendas and corporate greed. The historic mission of public radio is to serve underserved audiences. In today's media environment, it's difficult to make the case that the news, talk, and information audience is underserved at any time, anywhere. On the other hand, hardly any audience is less served than the audience for classical music, jazz, and the other types of music typically aired on public radio.

The Core Values study has been controversial among our ranks—something about being characterized as monks comes across as pejorative; nonetheless, there is some truth in what the study found. Classical listeners, for example, and by extension those of us involved in broadcasting classical music, tend to be a bit more reticent than our news and information listening counterparts. News listeners, on the other hand, are the ones who are more likely to be out in the streets with placards, campaigning for change.

Sadly, in our society it is often perceived that those who have the loudest voice also have the correct case. As thoughtful individuals, we know that’s not true; but that perception exists, even among intelligent people. It becomes clear then, that we must make our case in a more vocal manner. So with those issues in mind, I propose the following goals for AMPPR for the next three years:

My first goal is to develop a clear sense of mission. Our current mission statement states that “the mission of the Association of Music Personnel in Public Radio is to assure the preservation of music formats on public radio;” but we’ve wavered over the years about whether we represent classical radio only, or whether we exist to serve all music formats. I will call on the board to clarify that point and perhaps codify it in our mission statement. I’d also like to find a way to convey that we exist not only for music directors, but for personnel at all levels: management, programmers, and announcers.

My second goal is to become a more visibly active organization. We’ve been active in some areas, but we haven’t been particularly visible. I think there are issues we need to be more involved in; for example, HD radio and other new technologies—it’s in our best interests to make sure that HD gets off to a strong start. There are questions regarding music service and digital delivery—recording companies have legitimate interests, and so do we. AMPPR should be involved in making sure that the interests of both are served. And if we move to digital delivery, there are issues of quality and access that will need to be resolved. I think AMPPR could have a role there. Perhaps AMPPR could be involved in or sponsor the creation of a centralized music database that’s compatible with both of the major music library programs.

AMPPR could benefit from partnering with other groups. We’ve partnered with PRPD, and we’re a charter sponsor of the Music and Media forum. Perhaps there are other groups we could work with as well.

I’d like to create a set of talking points or some sort of document that stations can use as a reference, should they be challenged about the importance of music programming.

AMPPR should renew it’s commitment to providing training and coaching opportunities for personnel at member stations.

And finally, I’d like to resume publication of Music Notes in some shape, form, or fashion.

To accomplish these goals, it will require a more involved membership. Perhaps you don’t want to serve on the board, but you may be asked to serve on committees or panels. If you can write articles or letters to help us make the case for the importance of music programming, do it—you don’t need my permission! Whether it’s making the case in your local area, or writing for Current, Radio World, or other national publications, feel free to do so. 

All of these activities will require grant funding. If you’re a capable grant writer, let me know! We probably can use your services.

Running AMPPR is very time consuming, as I've already discovered. That's why I'm calling for my fourth goal—the hiring of an Executive Director. I'd like to have the position identified and a job description written by the 2007 conference. By 2008, I would like to have sources of funding identified, and by 2009, I hope we will have found the right person to serve as Executive Director.

Your input is very important to us. If you would like to expand on these goals, add goals that you feel are important for the growth of AMPPR, or discuss AMPPR’s future, just let me know. Our primary goal always is to serve you.

David Duff, President
Association of Music Personnel in Public Radio
dbduff@apr.org
March 14, 2006