NPR has a distinctive approach to their brand of journalism and it has personality and style. They have mastered the art of making sense of complex topics with simple story telling that also combines intelligent nuanced discussions. And they excel in production values including their signature music interstitials. When you combine their production smarts with their social media insights, it's no wonder they stand out.
esurran
· 6 months ago
I find it interesting that NPR, while touted in this article for being on the "cutting edge" actually cancelled a program that blended traditional broadcast and online media. Anyone remember the "Bryant Park Project"? It had a small, but growing, loyal, but younger (than you typical NPR listener) audience, but didn't really get a chance to prosper, barely on a year. What happened there...eerily similar to mainstream media, don't you think?
John Smith
· 6 months ago
NPR is the best news and entertainment source around. I've been a listener for 15+ years. I believe what sets them apart from other news agencies is they focus on educating their listeners, presenting all sides of an issue, and are not simply "fear mongers". They also expose their listeners to a wide variety of interestig topics and stories they might otherwise not hear, (you won't find this type of reporting on local or network news stations).
Will Thalheimer
· 6 months ago
You say in referring to NPR: And they owe that success to the culture of open access and audience participation that they’ve cultivated over the past decade.
I don't think that's it. I think it's the content. They just have better content. Also, their content is an antidote to recent mindless rhetoric in other news outlets (FOX News, etc.) and in political discourse in general. Evidence is in your story, where you say their audience increased during the 2008 election and has remained steady. Did they suddenly have more access or was it the content that people needed at the time?
They have another big advantage: radio in the era of shrinking time. Because more and more people are working more and more, few of us have time to get our news visually (which doesn't allow multi-tasking). And just to put a little point on it: Radio is an old technology, not a new one.
I won't deny that NPR's use of technology has had value (especially enabling people to link directly to individual news stories in audio format. That's awesome and a great way to publicize), but I still think their success starts with their content.
Suzanne Lainson
· 6 months ago
I agree with the statement that NPR's success is about content. It's quality programming delivered via radio, which is a convenient way to get it. There is no other comparable radio programming and relatively little in any medium that delivers at such a high level consistently. While so much in the media panders to whatever appears to sell, or whatever can be attached to advertising, NPR creates interesting shows. Many of these shows would have never survived in the commercial realm because their ratings would not have been high enough for the media owners to have had the faith to continue delivering them. NPR has been programmed for intelligent, curious people, and evidently there are quite a few of them tuning in.
iHouse
· 3 months ago
Lord knows where we'll be if we as a society continue to let newspapers, journalists and the concept of a strong, independent and professionally trained news media disappear from our midst. Scary times for those who believe in the value of a healthy democracy. Next generation social networking
Joe
· 5 months ago
intelligent broadcasting that needs only to filter out the liberal slant in order to be accurate.
xxdesmus
· 6 months ago
nice radio ... I have the exact same Boston Acoustics HD radio :)
everysandwich
· 6 months ago
Lots of interesting facts and analysis here. But the business model of public broadcasting is so different from mainstream that there's no telling what would transfer.
If NPR is so succesful, how come it still ask for money form the viewers? How come it still uses some taxpayer money? If they are that good, they should go completely private.
MJ
· 6 months ago
You're coming at it from the wrong direction MS. When people can get this for free why are they dipping into their own pockets to support it? It's because intelligent, independent reporting that truly leaves the audience to make their own mind up is increasingly rare. Engaged members of a community value that and choose to support; so should government. Being public is what attracts people to such services.
jaye05
· 5 months ago
It's called public radio because it is owned by the public. NPR does not rely on commercial support; thus the public is not required to endure wasted time listening to ads on products we don't care about. I'm sorry but your comment is naive. I suggest you do some research prior to sending comments.
Jim Kerr
· 6 months ago
I'm a big fan of NPR, but this article takes a very selective view of mainstream media. It points out that NPR is local, but NPR is actually NATIONAL, it is the local affiliates that are local. NPR can certainly strive to be more local, but they absolutely need the input/engine of local affiliates, which aren't owned by NPR. Contrast this with a reviled company like Clear Channel, which actually does have a local presence in all of their markets.
The article points out that NPR's listenership has increased since 2000 but neglects to point out that commercial radio listenership has also increased since 2000. Of course, the devil is in the details and there are losses in time spent listening, but to focus on pure listenership as a point of differentiation is just wrong.
The point about ubiquitous access ignores mainstream media initiatives like Hulu, Clear Channel's IHeartRadio mobile application, and CBS Radio's partnerships with AOL and Yahoo that span multiple distribution points. Again, NPR is doing it right, but to contrast this with mainstream media is wrong. They are BOTH moving toward the future.
In terms of social media, the article itself points out two examples of traditional medai that have a greater footprint on Twitter than NPR. So you can't really say that NPR is ahead of the curve here, either.
That said, NPR is doing some cool things. The "create your own podcast" is really cool and perfectly in line with their talk-based product offerings. As noted above, they also have a huge asset in their content, which is becoming more and more of a differentiation point due to its quality advantage over traditional news media every day.
I'm an NPR fan, and I think they are doing a ton of things right, but to give them credit for being the future when they are really closer to the middle of the pack is misleading.
Jim Kerr VP/Strategy Triton Media
Josh Catone
· 6 months ago
Hey Jim, I really appreciate the comment. I didn't mean to imply that NPR is the only mainstream organization moving in the right direct (or at least what I perceive as making strides toward the future), but I think their CEO-level commitment to breaking out of traditional media silos is unique.
I could write an article about the New York Times, for example, that is very similar in tone to this one. Some of the stuff they're doing is also very smart and innovative (they have a number of top blogs, reprint content from other top blogs, have their own RSS reader, were one of the first partners on the Kindle, have embraced Twitter, have opened up a ton of their data with APIs, etc.) -- in fact, maybe I will write that article. ;) CNN is doing great things, so are, to a certain extent, FOX, ESPN, and NBC (and especially some individual properties at those networks).
I think the blueprint that NPR is drawing for the future is a very promising, and that's what I meant to convey. I didn't mean to imply that they're the only network that will survive, or that their way is the only one. I think they're on a trajectory that will make them a media powerhouse in the future, though, and it is in large part due to their culture of open access.
Also, to your point about local vs. national. You're right that NPR is a national organization, that's actually what I said. What Schiller has often said recently is that having local affiliates (they're actually member stations rather than affiliates) is a benefit in terms of local coverage because it allows those stations to really own content in the local market and produce high quality stuff. Meanwhile, NPR on a national and international level has been building one of the world's largest news gathering organizations. One could probably argue the affiliate/member model vs. fully owned approach til they were blue in the face, but NPR, at least, thinks their model gives them an advantage in local markets.
-Josh Catone
Bernardo Velazquez
· 6 months ago
I ate this article up, really this is awesome stuff! Do you think NPR's (&/or the several others mentioned) three-pronged strategy of focusing on local, social, and accessable news feeding could be adopted by companies not in the news/information sector? (i.e. electronics, furnishing, clothing).
TS
· 6 months ago
I agree - NPR is a national outlet, and it's the local stations that are delivering the local content. NPR doesn't seem like they incorporate it very much, at least not on their website.
Roger Friedensen
· 6 months ago
One fly in the ointment of this argument: a great deal (perhaps the majority) or local content for many NPR stations is often generated by local print media, especially daily newspapers. I'm a big fan of NPR (and daily newspapers, for that matter), but -- like local TV and many, many bloggers and Twitterers -- a lot of the coal in those furnaces comes from the black-and-white newsrooms. At least today. Lord knows where we'll be if we as a society continue to let newspapers, journalists and the concept of a strong, independent and professionally trained news media disappear from our midst. Scary times for those who believe in the value of a healthy democracy.
"a great deal (perhaps the majority) or local content for many NPR stations is often generated by local print media, especially daily newspapers."
Proof?
"Lord knows where we'll be if we as a society continue to let newspapers, journalists and the concept of a strong, independent and professionally trained news media disappear from our midst."
The location of the content, be it digital or print, makes no difference. And why does somebody need professional training to be able to report truth? There are plenty of amazingly talented writers out there with the ability to produce beautiful reports that have no training. If anything I would argue that requiring special training is the ultimate admission that you are not right for the job.
anair
· 6 months ago
Journalists need special training so that they can spin the news in the desired direction - to "make a difference." Those writers with no training might interpret things in a different way letting too much of the truth out. For the Bible we needed Wycliffe; for news we need blogs.
james
· 6 months ago
NPR has low diversity among their reporters! Their Hispanic, African-American, make up does not even come close to to reflect the populations diversity. There is reports of nepotism in hiring from people who applied for local jobs. Both in hiring process and exposing and soliciting available positions. This problem became worst during the Bush years when they put a super right-wing women on the helm. Please report on that stat as well.
anair
· 6 months ago
Diversity of race doesn't matter nearly as much as diversity of ideologies and ideas. NPR lacks in the latter.
techsupport
· 6 months ago
NPR is starting to look like they have the future of news all figured out. Or at least, they appear to doing a lot better at it than the rest of the traditional media.
James
· 6 months ago
Why they won't: Because they lean to the left.
ed
· 6 months ago
If NPR is so great, then how about they stop taxing tax payer money? Let them compete for earnings, then we'll see how great they are against other media outlets.
Josh Catone
· 6 months ago
Well, on average only about ~15% of the operating revenue for public radio comes from government sources (most of that 15% from the CPB, which in many cases funds stations in markets where public radio is the only local outlet). Most public radio funding is from private sources. This is the breakdown from FY2007:
* 31% from listeners in the form of pledges, memberships, and other donations * 20% from businesses via corporate underwriting * 11% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which is federally funded * 10% from licensee support * 9% from foundations and major gifts * 5% from local and state governments, and * 14% from all other sources.
On the national level, over half of NPR's budget comes from member stations dues, afaik.
Miramon
· 6 months ago
None of that is I think very relevant to NPR's success, even if true. It's still content that makes the difference.
As regards news, their primary win, they cover stories in minutes at a time, not seconds, and their member stations that carry the BBC also have good world news, which is nonexistent on US networks. The news coverage is simply fundamentally superior to all competition by a huge margin.
As regards entertainment and opinion programming, they typically have a superior mix of amusing and highbrow stuff that for whatever reason the competition doesn't even try to match. If you want ranting talking heads spewing hate or know-nothing nitwits, look to Clear Channel, CBS Radio or one of the other commercial networks, but if you either want to hear someone with half a brain, or humor that's a cut above the locker room, then you need NPR.
Another factor in their favor is that current radio advertising is just evil. The airwaves are filled with utterly fraudulent come-ons for bogus herbal remedies and commercial debt relief programs that start with a "free" call to a minimum-wage counselor. While NPR of course does carry advertising in the form of their sponsorship announcements, it's moderate, subdued, and brief.
That strategy stuff mentioned in the article may or may not be true, but I think it's not hugely relevant to NPR's success.
Aaron Deacon
· 6 months ago
I think the private/public dimension may actually turn out to be prescient as well, as some mainstream newspapers kick around their value as public institutions and try to figure out how government can make them more sustainable.
Rick Hardy
· 6 months ago
Interesting article, Josh. I'll preface my comments by saying that I'm a supporter of my local NPR radio station (SCPR).
I agree with the comments that content is a key to this discussion. I believe NPR's content is more diverse and in-depth than other media. I like the personality of how they do news. I like the international coverage. I like that I can freely access it anytime.
But the fact that NPR is supported by government funds and fundraising is a major reason why NPR can do these things. Their business model allows them to experiment in new media. It's also a major reason why NPR listeners are so loyal. Many of them have donated to their local public radio station. That changes the entire equation. Of course, you're going to have free content on the website. Your listeners are also your donors. If you want them to donate next year, you have to cater to them. How could they charge for it when many of their listeners are have been supporting the coverage? And local coverage? As one commenter said, I believe that's being done by local public radio stations. Southern California Public Radio has expanded their news staff. I like their local coverage, both by reporters and by their talk show hosts.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of hyperlocal information. I know it's here and will be in the future. But it's information, not news. I'll stick with Herbert Gans definition 30 years ago that news is information analyzed by journalists. And by definition, journalists are trained. They have standards and ethics by which they abide. Just pointing a camera or recording a scene doesn't make it news. Many would debate this point, but take it further with local, state and federal government. Journalists are needed to keep this democracy healthy.
Anyhow, thanks for the great post.
Ed G
· 6 months ago
I'll repeat what was posted above by Eric:
Why does somebody need professional training to be able to report truth? There are plenty of amazingly talented writers out there with the ability to produce beautiful reports that have no training. If anything I would argue that requiring special training is the ultimate admission that you are not right for the job.
Addis R. Pérez
· 6 months ago
Although I am disenchanted that my favorite NPR show, the Bryant Park Project, was canceled last year, I still tune in online and listen to the podcasts, albeit not as much as I once used to. I agree with previous comments regarding the quality of the content NPR presents - it's why I stick around.
chris strouth
· 6 months ago
You couldn't be more dead on. NPR is one of the only trad companies that gets new technology and isn't fighting with it. They have an understanding of the new "localism" That the audience wants things regarding there area, and their areas perspective. As the world becomes smaller that viewpoint becomes even more critical . The other thing NPR understands is the power of personality. That the news isn't always as important who reads it.
Claudio Luis Vera (@modulist)
· 6 months ago
NPR is doing well because they've remained intelligent and interesting when everyone else is pandering. As for your arguments for social media and being local, you may be overreaching a bit.
Persephone
· 6 months ago
Looking forward to reading this whole story when my conference over, but this sentence jumped out at me: According to new CEO Vivian Schiller, that means that NPR has a culture incredibly devoted to local coverage.
What NPR is she talking about? I live in a big NPR market and listen fanatically. But the amount of original local reporting done by the TWO NPR stations is minimal and of uneven quality. If that's true in a top 5 market, I can't imagine what they're doing in small towns.
anair
· 6 months ago
The problem with NPR is that it has a Liberal bias. If they really wanted to be engaging, intelligent and independent they would not be so Liberal. We get enough of that from the Mainstream Media. If they really wanted to be diverse they would have at least some conservative views. If NPR can't get past this they will eventually fail.
Big Tuna
· 6 months ago
NPR owes it's "success" to the fact that it's subsidized by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!! Comparing NPR to commercial radio is like comparing the US Army to Bob's Warehouse Security Services. One takes money and the other makes money
Dave Moskowitz MD FACP
· 6 months ago
Here's one reason why I think NPR doesn't serve people well enough. Like all media outlets in the US, they're terrified of leading with a story. For example, Judy Woodward was in St Louis a few weeks ago to plug agricultural biotech companies in St Louis. When I mentioned there were medical biotech cos. in town also, which were being ignored (http://www.hbasonline.org/en/art/170/), she did absolutely nothing--not even the most cursory fact-checking by an underling. This is not good journalism, IMHO.
I whole heartedly agree with the comments about the quality of content, but in contrast to Josh, I can take or leave the "localism" provided by local NPR affiliate stations, local news is not the problem. Media in the US is very parochial, the broader picture broadcast by NPR is in such contrast to the tedium and fluff broadcast by the local network news.
I think the social media issues discussed here are overstated, NPR strength is its content.
Alan Whitney
· 6 months ago
npr is pretty much rocking
Jesse McFarlane
· 6 months ago
This is just one shining example of how important social media is in regards to empowering non-profits to fulfill their missions in a world filled with marketing noise. Great write-up.
nwuboy
· 6 months ago
Its sad that this article doesn't mention the fact that NPR's flagship broadcast, All Things Considered...STILL doesn't have a podcast. What's up with that? So much for "getting" the new media movement.
Queenie
· 6 months ago
Will T is right... NPR is one of the last news outlets that actually offers in-depth reporting on news, not just the bleeders & scandals du jour. That alone makes it stand out from teevee "news."
Miles Thomas
· 5 months ago
It would be interesting to do a "redux" article, to compare and contrast NPR to BBC radio (in the UK), which is doing many of the same things--digital platforms (online streamed radio, podcast & catchup streams, DAB terrestrial which is somewhat similar to HD radio, DVB-freeview terrestrial digital & DVB-freesat satellite digital radio feeds), local stations and themed stations-9 national stations in all, very deep web presence, a commitment to speech radio (not TALK radio of uninformed opinions, but speech in terms of factual documentary, news analysis and radio drama), and a commitment to underserved populations (childrens radio and also Asian language radio). And World Service. All for free (supported by TV license fee, payment of which is not required for radio use) and programme linked publishing (magazines, books, DVDs, CD's) and rights licensing to other broadcasters.
The UK is experiencing some of the same issues as USA (curtailment of local newspapers) and there has been criticism of the BBC of "encroachment" onto services that would be commercially viable if the BBC didn't get involved, but overall a good message.
And I am just a listener not employed by the BBC, just lucky to live in the UK, and having to make do with NPR when I travel to the US
Brian Hunt
· 5 months ago
I'm a big fan of NPR, though I take issue with the claim from Schiller that pay-for-content is a dead end. In fact, per the previously mentioned link, NPR gets a significant portion of its funding from people like me who regularly 'contribute' -- that is, at least indirectly, paying for content -- to a local public radio station for the ability to keep NPR on the air.
ATLPilot
· 5 months ago
As interesting as all the tech stuff is, I don't think that is why NPR has incredible listenership compared to other mainstream media outlets. I suspect that people are sick and tired of under-qualified reporters/guests on opinion shows, telling them what to think (as opposed to what is going on). NPR has done an amazing job of being objective and reporting the facts, which lets people draw their own conclusion about world/local events.
Ben Redmond
· 4 months ago
Thought this article was phenomenal. I think NPR has the highest quality content and the best storytelling anywhere. I'm an NPR member using social media to encourage others to contribute to their local public radio stations. A video I created, "first charitable act" (http://ow.ly/hLaR) , is a finalist in the Converse One Star/Target Challenge.Create.Change contest. I'm trying to get as much exposure for the video and, in turn, for public radio, as possible. Check it out!
All Comments
I don't think that's it. I think it's the content. They just have better content. Also, their content is an antidote to recent mindless rhetoric in other news outlets (FOX News, etc.) and in political discourse in general. Evidence is in your story, where you say their audience increased during the 2008 election and has remained steady. Did they suddenly have more access or was it the content that people needed at the time?
They have another big advantage: radio in the era of shrinking time. Because more and more people are working more and more, few of us have time to get our news visually (which doesn't allow multi-tasking). And just to put a little point on it: Radio is an old technology, not a new one.
I won't deny that NPR's use of technology has had value (especially enabling people to link directly to individual news stories in audio format. That's awesome and a great way to publicize), but I still think their success starts with their content.
Next generation social networking
http://brisbane.at9t.com/
The article points out that NPR's listenership has increased since 2000 but neglects to point out that commercial radio listenership has also increased since 2000. Of course, the devil is in the details and there are losses in time spent listening, but to focus on pure listenership as a point of differentiation is just wrong.
The point about ubiquitous access ignores mainstream media initiatives like Hulu, Clear Channel's IHeartRadio mobile application, and CBS Radio's partnerships with AOL and Yahoo that span multiple distribution points. Again, NPR is doing it right, but to contrast this with mainstream media is wrong. They are BOTH moving toward the future.
In terms of social media, the article itself points out two examples of traditional medai that have a greater footprint on Twitter than NPR. So you can't really say that NPR is ahead of the curve here, either.
That said, NPR is doing some cool things. The "create your own podcast" is really cool and perfectly in line with their talk-based product offerings. As noted above, they also have a huge asset in their content, which is becoming more and more of a differentiation point due to its quality advantage over traditional news media every day.
I'm an NPR fan, and I think they are doing a ton of things right, but to give them credit for being the future when they are really closer to the middle of the pack is misleading.
Jim Kerr
VP/Strategy
Triton Media
I could write an article about the New York Times, for example, that is very similar in tone to this one. Some of the stuff they're doing is also very smart and innovative (they have a number of top blogs, reprint content from other top blogs, have their own RSS reader, were one of the first partners on the Kindle, have embraced Twitter, have opened up a ton of their data with APIs, etc.) -- in fact, maybe I will write that article. ;) CNN is doing great things, so are, to a certain extent, FOX, ESPN, and NBC (and especially some individual properties at those networks).
I think the blueprint that NPR is drawing for the future is a very promising, and that's what I meant to convey. I didn't mean to imply that they're the only network that will survive, or that their way is the only one. I think they're on a trajectory that will make them a media powerhouse in the future, though, and it is in large part due to their culture of open access.
Also, to your point about local vs. national. You're right that NPR is a national organization, that's actually what I said. What Schiller has often said recently is that having local affiliates (they're actually member stations rather than affiliates) is a benefit in terms of local coverage because it allows those stations to really own content in the local market and produce high quality stuff. Meanwhile, NPR on a national and international level has been building one of the world's largest news gathering organizations. One could probably argue the affiliate/member model vs. fully owned approach til they were blue in the face, but NPR, at least, thinks their model gives them an advantage in local markets.
-Josh Catone
Roger Friedensen, APR
www.twitter.com/sixstringsnc
Proof?
"Lord knows where we'll be if we as a society continue to let newspapers, journalists and the concept of a strong, independent and professionally trained news media disappear from our midst."
The location of the content, be it digital or print, makes no difference. And why does somebody need professional training to be able to report truth? There are plenty of amazingly talented writers out there with the ability to produce beautiful reports that have no training. If anything I would argue that requiring special training is the ultimate admission that you are not right for the job.
* 31% from listeners in the form of pledges, memberships, and other donations
* 20% from businesses via corporate underwriting
* 11% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which is federally funded
* 10% from licensee support
* 9% from foundations and major gifts
* 5% from local and state governments, and
* 14% from all other sources.
http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html
On the national level, over half of NPR's budget comes from member stations dues, afaik.
As regards news, their primary win, they cover stories in minutes at a time, not seconds, and their member stations that carry the BBC also have good world news, which is nonexistent on US networks. The news coverage is simply fundamentally superior to all competition by a huge margin.
As regards entertainment and opinion programming, they typically have a superior mix of amusing and highbrow stuff that for whatever reason the competition doesn't even try to match. If you want ranting talking heads spewing hate or know-nothing nitwits, look to Clear Channel, CBS Radio or one of the other commercial networks, but if you either want to hear someone with half a brain, or humor that's a cut above the locker room, then you need NPR.
Another factor in their favor is that current radio advertising is just evil. The airwaves are filled with utterly fraudulent come-ons for bogus herbal remedies and commercial debt relief programs that start with a "free" call to a minimum-wage counselor. While NPR of course does carry advertising in the form of their sponsorship announcements, it's moderate, subdued, and brief.
That strategy stuff mentioned in the article may or may not be true, but I think it's not hugely relevant to NPR's success.
I agree with the comments that content is a key to this discussion. I believe NPR's content is more diverse and in-depth than other media. I like the personality of how they do news. I like the international coverage. I like that I can freely access it anytime.
But the fact that NPR is supported by government funds and fundraising is a major reason why NPR can do these things. Their business model allows them to experiment in new media. It's also a major reason why NPR listeners are so loyal. Many of them have donated to their local public radio station. That changes the entire equation. Of course, you're going to have free content on the website. Your listeners are also your donors. If you want them to donate next year, you have to cater to them. How could they charge for it when many of their listeners are have been supporting the coverage? And local coverage? As one commenter said, I believe that's being done by local public radio stations. Southern California Public Radio has expanded their news staff. I like their local coverage, both by reporters and by their talk show hosts.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of hyperlocal information. I know it's here and will be in the future. But it's information, not news. I'll stick with Herbert Gans definition 30 years ago that news is information analyzed by journalists. And by definition, journalists are trained. They have standards and ethics by which they abide. Just pointing a camera or recording a scene doesn't make it news. Many would debate this point, but take it further with local, state and federal government. Journalists are needed to keep this democracy healthy.
Anyhow, thanks for the great post.
Why does somebody need professional training to be able to report truth? There are plenty of amazingly talented writers out there with the ability to produce beautiful reports that have no training. If anything I would argue that requiring special training is the ultimate admission that you are not right for the job.
According to new CEO Vivian Schiller, that means that NPR has a culture incredibly devoted to local coverage.
What NPR is she talking about? I live in a big NPR market and listen fanatically. But the amount of original local reporting done by the TWO NPR stations is minimal and of uneven quality. If that's true in a top 5 market, I can't imagine what they're doing in small towns.
I whole heartedly agree with the comments about the quality of content, but in contrast to Josh, I can take or leave the "localism" provided by local NPR affiliate stations, local news is not the problem. Media in the US is very parochial, the broader picture broadcast by NPR is in such contrast to the tedium and fluff broadcast by the local network news.
I think the social media issues discussed here are overstated, NPR strength is its content.
The UK is experiencing some of the same issues as USA (curtailment of local newspapers) and there has been criticism of the BBC of "encroachment" onto services that would be commercially viable if the BBC didn't get involved, but overall a good message.
And I am just a listener not employed by the BBC, just lucky to live in the UK, and having to make do with NPR when I travel to the US