In a decision that undoubtedly won’t sit well with a number of its listeners, Colorado Public Radio announced that it will no longer carry live or tape-delayed broadcasts of the Colorado Symphony, ending a 15 year partnership. On the surface, this news looks like part of the trend in classical music broadcasting in which stations many stations are forgoing local content for the sake of cheaper, more bland, imported music. In reality, the reasons behind this move are much more complex, and raise questions that all stations must face about content partnerships: How are these partnerships funded? How are they promoted? Who benefits? Should a partner organization receive remuneration for the rights to their content? And, perhaps most importantly, who controls the content?
In an article dated November 29th, 2014, the Denver Post covered this decision in detail, outlining new demands the Symphony was asking of CPR in order for CPR to maintain free rights to the Symphony’s performances. After reaching out to Jerome Kern (no relation), CEO of the Symphony, he provided me the memorandum of understanding that includes the exact terms the Symphony demanded:
- A complete calendar of all planned CSA broadcasts, rebroadcasts and related content through May 31, 2015, to be presented by CPR by December 15, 2014.
- A comprehensive communications schedule for each concert in the live-broadcast series to include advance on-air, online, and social media promotions of all concerts connected to respective Masterworks programs, including live broadcasts. For example, in promoting a live broadcast of a performance on a Friday evening, CPR will advise listeners that the program takes place Friday, Saturday and Sunday at Boettcher Concert Hall.
- Promotions of live concerts will include details of conductor, guest artist(s), repertoire, time/date/location of all concerts, and CSA website referral for ticketing information, both on air and online. These promotions will air a minimum of ten times each on both CPR News and Classical stations.
- Promotions of rebroadcast concerts will include details of conductor, guest artist(s), repertoire, recommendations for related concerts in the CSA season, and CSA website referral for ticketing information, both on air and online. These promotions will air a minimum of ten times each on both CPR News and Classical stations.
- Access to recordings of supporting content (interviews, features, etc.) in the CPR archive, including a complete inventory of content, for promotional use by the CSA and CPR. The CSA will present a content calendar that ties archival material to current season programs.
- The CSA will have the right to co-create and approve all content used to promote recordings of its music.
- CPR will not rebroadcast CSA recordings during any Masterworks, Inside the Score, Spotlight or Holiday concerts through the 2014/15 season. These performance dates are to be considered blacked out.
- Guaranteed editorial coverage to include advance artists profiles/interviews/performances (minimum of one broadcast feature per program) and one concert review of every Masterworks program in the CSA program, to be broadcast/posted no later than 10 am on Saturday mornings, following Friday concerts, with referrals to CSA website for ticketing information.
- Quarterly meetings between the CSA and the CPR editorial/arts-bureau staff to review season highlights and feature story opportunities.
Various sources that have covered this story so far have also pointed out that the Colorado Symphony underwrites Colorado Public Radio; the Denver Post story I linked to above puts that figure at $50,000 over the past year. During my conversation with Mr. Kern, however, he told me the actual number is $91,000. Naturally, given some of the demands the Symphony was making regarding how its broadcasts on CPR were to be structured and promoted, red flags were raised. Any time a content partner, especially one who is also an underwriter, starts using language like “guaranteed editorial coverage” or makes demands about program promotion, it puts stations in a very tight ethical spot. After receiving this proposal from the Symphony, CPR drafted a counter-proposal that eliminated some of the provisions it couldn’t honor. In an email provided to me by Mr. Kern, CPR’s Senior Vice President of Programming Sean Nethery outlined the station’s position:
Just as the CSA has complete and sole editorial control over the content the CSA produces, so must Colorado Public Radio have complete and sole editorial control of all content CPR produces for our radio and digital services. No content provider can dictate or influence any editorial or promotional content CPR produces. (Underwriting is the sole opportunity an organization has to request inclusion of specific information in promotional messaging.)
Since several of the specifics you request are part of our standard procedures, we have listed these in the agreement so the CSA clearly understands what CPR does now and is prepared to continue to do. But none of the other elements of your proposal that requires specific editorial or promotional content, or editorial co-creation or consultation, are possible or negotiable.
Nethery went on to reiterate how much he and CPR valued the long-standing relationship between CPR and the Symphony, and that the station stood ready to continue the partnership. Subsequent emails between the two parties illustrate a situation in which neither side was willing to move, and on the morning of November 18th, the relationship officially ended. Nethery wrote to Kern, “For the record: It is the CSA, not CPR, that has changed the terms of our long-standing agreement (never a contract) and apparently made this partnership untenable. Colorado Public Radio has never tried to impose any conditions or requirements on the Colorado Symphony’s editorial or promotional choices or practices, as the CSA has just attempted to with Colorado Public Radio. We have always respected the Symphony’s priorities and choices and will continue to do so.”
As much as listeners may be upset and disappointed by CPR’s decision, the station really had no choice. The ethical lines are clear and cannot be crossed. What was somewhat surprising to me was how much Mr. Kern did not seem to understand the need for a firewall between programming and underwriting in public media. At one point during our phone conversation he asked me “Do the programming people not talk to the underwriting people? Does the left hand not know what the right is doing?” I tried to explain the need for such a firewall and how these departments work, but to no avail.
One thing that seemed particularly odd to me about this situation was the Symphony’s demand for “promotions [that] will air a minimum of ten times each on both CPR News and Classical stations.” It seemed to me that the Symphony was receiving plenty of guaranteed promotion, considering that it shelled out $91,000 over the past year for just that. I also assumed that those underwriting messages were likely timed to performance dates. I asked CPR to confirm this assumption, and Nethery told me that indeed, yes, “the Symphony’s underwriting was tied to upcoming concerts, as are most event-oriented underwriting spots.” However, Nethery also emphasized that nothing about the underwriting schedule was a part of the ultimately failed negotiations over the Symphony’s broadcasts.
I asked Mr. Kern what about the promotion provided by underwriting was insufficient. He indicated that it wasn’t the promotion that was insufficient, but the fact that the Symphony was spending a lot of money on underwriting, yet giving away its content without remuneration. “They don’t want to pay for it!” he said. “Any agreement we have with CPR has to be bilateral. We aren’t going to give out content without getting something in return.” I pressed him on this issue, given that nothing in the Symphony’s memorandum included any mention of money. I still don’t quite understand what he meant – perhaps he views having greater editorial control as an in-kind form of payment from the station.
I do see his point, though. Standing in his shoes, as a CEO of a symphony in the 21st century, where money is increasingly hard to come by, is it really a sound business decision to spend $91,000 per year on advertising, then give a media organization carte blanche with your product without asking for them to pay anything for it? It all depends on the organization’s priorities. The Colorado Symphony has been aggressive in recent years in trying new things to attract new audiences and diversify its revenue streams, including teaming up with pop artists and its now-famous concerts sponsored by the marijuana industry. A good CEO will look at everything his company or organization does, and decide whether or not those actions have a true benefit. Mr. Kern and the Symphony probably looked at the existing relationship with CPR and decided that it was no longer healthy for them to give away the rights to the Symphony’s performances for free. He’s looking out for his own, and that’s certainly his right. Just like CPR had to look out for its integrity when it turned down the Symphony’s new proposal.
Ultimately, it’s a shame because the listeners lose access to the Symphony. CPR broadcasts all over the state; for many people, it’s just not feasible to drive all the way to Denver to take in a concert. For older and less mobile listeners in the Denver area, radio may be their only reasonable connection to the Symphony. I wonder if a monetary solution isn’t possible: the Symphony could ask for $x,000 for broadcast rights (WITHOUT any editorial caveats), and that money would come from CPR’s programming budget. If the money isn’t there, perhaps CPR could seek a new corporate sponsor to cover part or all of the costs. Of course I’m simplifying this greatly, but this seems like it could be away for everyone to win: the Symphony gets compensation for the rights to its content, and CPR doesn’t have to compromise its programming/underwriting integrity.
I’d love to hear what other people think, and perhaps from other station managers on how they navigate the murky waters of content partnerships (especially when underwriting is involved). In the meantime, Jerome Kern tells me that the two sides will meet again in January to see if something can be hammered out. But the Symphony is already making plans to find other ways to distribute its content through its own channels, or perhaps even another radio station. I’d caution him, though, that if he wants to go the public radio route, other stations will balk at his demands (as they stand now) just as CPR did.
Subscribe Via Email
Enter your email address to subscribe to Scanning the Dial and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.
Seems to me as a listener that currently there are only three significant distributors of classical concerts in the US:
• National Public Radio
• Minnesota Public Radio
• WFMT Radio Network
As a Chicagoan, I get a kick out of listening to the announcement at the end of each NY Philharmonic concert that distribution is handled by WFMT.
Perhaps Mr. Kern needs some a more comprehensive understanding of symphony distribution works. He should be able to find this out by speaking with his peers at any of the orchestras whose concerts are broadcast. My recollection is that there is an outside underwriter in each case.
Yes, usually there is an outside sponsor or underwriter. The New York Philharmonic broadcasts are underwritten by The Kaplen Foundation, the Audrey Love Charitable Foundation, MetLife Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Arts (according to the message one hears at the beginning of each program).
As for website mentions and fundraising, the Chicago Symphony broadcasts include fundraising appeals and directions to cso.org multiple times during each broadcast.
I think both the NYP and Chicago have independent producers for their syndicated radio programs, which are both distributed through WFMT. Perhaps the Colorado Symphony could consider going this route, but I also wonder if they have the “big name” recognition that would make stations want to carry them outside of Colorado…
For many years, WFMT produced the CSO broadcasts, which were hosted by WFMT announcers; initially IIRC by Norman Pelligrini, later by Don Tait.
A number of years ago, CSO decided to produce the broadcasts themselves. Marty Ronish is the producer; Lisa Simeone is the on air host.
NYP: at one point, Kerry Frumkin of WFMT was hosting the broadcasts. Currently, the actor Alec Baldwin is the host.
As a Colorado Symphony subscriber and patron, I’d like to be able drill down into that $91,000 figure to better understand where that money goes. One thing is for sure: The optics of this for the CSO and CPR — but especially the symphony — are terrible. This follows on some other rather poorly handled moves that left egg on the face of this orchestra that I support. No doubt, Kern is largely responsible for the fact the CSO even exists today. I appreciate his attempting to identify and create new revenue streams, but I bemoan some of the PR price that some actions have exacted on the base of support the symphony currently has. I know I’m questioning whether my support should go in other directions, and I for one moved here partially as the result of Denver having a rather formidable orchestra and I wanted to see it succeed. I still hope it does, but after double-fails like this one, I sometimes think they’re their own worst enemy.
John, I agree with you about the optics – both sides take a big PR hit when things like this happen. Like I said, though, I’m not sure what else CPR could do. If they were to allow something like this to happen, it would set a dangerous and unethical precedent for all of public radio’s programming. Public radio’s entire model relies on editorial independence. If CPR were to accept underwriting money from the Symphony and allow the Symphony to dictate its programming, it would basically amount to payola (which is technically illegal).
That said, I don’t think CPR is totally blameless either. For fifteen years the two organizations collaborated without a written contract, and instead relied on an implied agreement. The Symphony was absolutely right to take stock of the relationship and re-evaluate how it worked. It’s something BOTH sides should have done jointly before this situation came to a head. So when the Symphony came to CPR with what it wanted to do, CPR was obviously blind-sided.
I wonder if union contracts had anything to do with this. I assume that the orchestra is AFM and stagehands are IATSE, typically broadcasts are treated as ‘extra’ services and require additional payments. Frankly I would not be surprise if there weren’t some behind-the-scenes machinations to fund this portion of the cost, and perhaps the ‘outrageous’ demands of CPR was a less-than-graceful way out of the situation.
But on the other hand, broadcasters often feel entitled to the efforts of their local musical ensembles, they reason that by broadcasting they are providing much-needed publicity. After all, the concert takes place whether or not it makes it to broadcast, so what’s the harm in broadcasting it at a later time? But the truth is that broadcasts generally do little to build a new audience — broadcasting to the choir so to speak — and frequently are of more benefit to the broadcaster than the orchestra. In fact an argument can be made that making the concert available to potential concertgoers at no cost reduces concert attendance. The thing is, it takes considerable resources to mount a season, if CPR is profiting off of the broadcasts, the CSO deserves to be compensated.
With the widespread cancellation of broadcasts & recording contracts many orchestras have worked to include these activities as part of the standard services. That is why you are seeing orchestras like Chicago and San Francisco producing their own broadcasts and commercial recordings – they worked them into the musicians and stagehand contracts as part of the standard season. But the truth is that orchestras no longer need to rely on radio stations to produce broadcasts, there are countless other means of distribution. Don’t get me wrong, there are compelling reasons for the CSO & CPR to continue their arrangements, but both organizations will have to come to terms with the realities of the 21st century. My guess is that the broadcasts will be missed by everyone involved, especially the audience. So within a couple of years one of two things will happen: either both parties will come to an amicable agreement to resume the broadcasts, or the CSO will produce the broadcast themselves and license it to CPR.
Do you know if they are still recording the concerts?
K-
They are still recording the concerts, and Jerry Kern tells me they plan to experiment with online streaming (not unlike what you’re doing with JSoM), plus other unspecified “alternate” possibilities.
Your points are totally valid, though, about the evolving relationships between musical arts organizations and broadcasters. It speaks to a larger point that I plan to explore soon about how those relationships may or may not work in the future.
As an aside, I think I should point out that the work that I do with WFIU and JSoM is a unique situation that very few, if any other stations have the ability to work with (i.e. a world-class music school and a public radio station, all under the same big institutional umbrella). That doesn’t mean that these big picture questions aren’t in the back of my mind, though…!
Hi,
Can anybody please let us know whom to approach for Television Broadcast Rights for Asia Territory for Full length English concerts. Content includes Old as well as New concerts of various artist. If possible can you please share the contact details or guide us how to go about to acquire On air Television Broadcast Rights. As we are interested in Launching a
English Music Channel for APAC. Awaiting for a positive response.
Warm Regards
Ketan Oza