Listeners deserve to hear more about KUOW during pledge weeks ...

Read our medium brilliant piece in The Stranger about KUOW's ongoing pledge drive, and their finances.

We spent a few days grubbing in the 2006 audits of the popular Seattle public radio station, interviewing its longtime GM Wayne Roth.

The Stranger got the complaint- not an uncommon one during pledge drives- that while the staff is made to beg and poor-mouth, the station is sitting on large reserves which they don't bother to mention to potential pledgers.

Scrutiny of the Seattle sacred cow has been rife in print and on the blogs since August when veteran staffer Ken Vincent loudly quit KUOW declaiming- among other things- low staff wages despite high cash reserves.

But other questions have been raised: Is the sacred cow milking us? Are KUOW's straits so dire that pledge drives need be so long, frequent, and frantic? And if so, why the surpluses and what are the plans for this extra money? Why aren't the surpluses and plans for them more obvious the casual potential donor surfing their Web site?

(Contrary to what Republicans and commercial radio folk say, NPR isn't dependent on tax dollars, getting less than one percent of its budget from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) the nonprofit Congress created in 1967 to pass federal funds to PBS and NPR. But local stations get an average of 15 percent of their budgets in CPB grants to help support local program production, program acquisition, community outreach and keep the lights on. Government grants account for only 11% of KUOW's budget. Clearly, it needs listener support, underwriting, and other fundraising.).

KUOW is a very successful public radio station. Last year its ratings put it number four among all Seattle radio stations; and, impressive for a medium market station- it's 10th in public stations nationally. It's added KXOT in Tacoma, two HD channels and an Olympia-area AM station (1340) that airs the same programming the FM outlet does.

General Manager Wayne Roth was grumpy. He'd not been amused at the questions raised in the recent disgruntled employee kerfuffle. We could tell he didn't think the time he'd been pressured into spending on the phone with us was worth much either.

"The brouhaha with Ken made it sound like there's somebody over here living off the fat of the land and that listeners are being double-talked," he said.

Roth, who's led KUOW since 1983, went into a litany of why there's excess money, always has been, why it's prudent, and what they're doing with it.

"I don't know how we could be more transparent," he said.

But some can. "We have a reasonable right to know everything but salaries," says Seattle psychiatrist Brian Grant. "On their Web site, they're not saying in plain English what their financial situation is- the annual report does not even have a balance sheet."

Grant's no shit-disturbing blogger. He runs a business and sits on some Seattle arts boards. A medium level giver, does employee matching at KUOW. His level of giving is the bread and butter of non-profits like public radio.

His problem is the digging it took to find the serious financial reporting. KUOW's annual report appears on their site with great graphics, and financials in pie charts which are colorful but vague about income and output. "There's nothing," says Grant, "that says in plain English, 'here's our surplus.'"

Roth told us the 2006 audits were on the KUOW site; but we couldn't find them. They weren't in or near the annual report where intuitively they should be. Roth finally supplied a link: they were on the About page for the Board of Directors- a link in the lower half of the page, unrelated to anything else.

Once in the audits, things became much clearer and we found that KUOW is pretty much what Wayne Roth says it is. They have indeed made a sizable "profit" in the last two years, but they've spent massively on buying KXOT; expanding staff, and facilities for it. In 2006, they spent their surplus and a bit more to acquire the station, and the license.

"We're fortunate to have this amount of working capital- not all public radio stations do," Says Roth. "It means we don't have to go out and get a grant to be able to do new things- we can actually use working capital for improvements or expansion." He says his board also requires him to maintain a 25% rainy day fund.

Grant, who is a solid, longtime fan of the station was happy. "Figuratively, they were able to buy a new house without taking out a mortgage- they did it with cash on hand from a current year surplus. We should all be so lucky!"

The pie charts in the Annual Report use the creative term of "applied revenue" of 6.8 million which exactly matches the costs listed in the audit. But to casual Web readers, the surpluses, which can be seen as at odds with the overwrought pleas of the pledge drives, are never mentioned.

The drives, or "guilt-a-thons," ongoing this week on KUOW, and rival KPLU are an aggressive way to fundraise. "Anyone can throw out a piece of direct mail," says a former KUOW staffer, "Pledge drives are the active pursuit of money." They actually withhold product until the consumers run for their checkbooks screaming, "Stop, Stop, I'll pay!" We can't think of a non-profit that has such effective fundraising leverage on donors. It's like the fire department letting your house burn until you cough up something for their retirement fund.

(To be fair, KUOW's pledge drives at 18 days a year are the shortest in the area: KPLU and KEXP each do 20 days).

If KUOW has nothing to hide, and it apparently does not, why is it so hard to find the real financials? Why has the information around their growth and the surpluses that enable it been kept so opaque? This vagueness has incubated suspicion and derision by donors like Grant who require accountability of the organizations he supports.

Could it be that it's a harder sell to would-be donors if they knew the station was sitting on a million dollar surplus? 

""We're not stupid," says Grant. "Their hyper-enthusiastic twice-yearly pitches are gung-ho: we need money to buy programming and continue to do good work. But tell me more- entertain me with facts."

Comments

[Duffman]

It sounds to me like KUOW is just being prudent and frugal with their financial condition and in so doing enjoy a security and confidence that they're prepared for anything. Other radio networks/stations should be so wise. Is it 'really' at the expense of the talent/staff...I doubt anyone's arm is being twisted to remain on board. I actually feel better at giving to KUOW, knowing that funds are apparently being 'managed' in a fiscal and frugal manner.
Next topic.

[Andrew]

It's very dishonest to imply if not state outright to listeners that they need money after their financial requirements have been met. If they met the financial target on day five of Beg-A-Thon week then they should either cancel day six and seven or tell listeners "we have what we need but if you keep contributing we can invest in some repeater stations."

Their pseudo justification that self-investment one and the same with pressing needs is bullshit. If donor's are donating to build the size of the station they should be made aware of that at the time of the solicitation for donations, not after they find the 2007 financial report hidden like an easter egg on KUOW's site. That would be like if McDonalds were to advertize that cheeseburgers were healthy diet food only to hide the nutrition information way up their butts were nobody could find it.

Blatantly underhanded.

[Duffman]

Totally dissimilar comparison not worthy of comment.

[Ted Smitht]

KUOW won't tell us because there is something that KUOW doesn't want you to know. Golden parachutes for the "top" managers, perhaps? How do the expense accounts check out? This sort of apparent deception is shameful for a "public" institution.

[Duffman]

...rampant rumor; back it up with facts or don't perpetuate it

[Andrew]

Here's a link to the 2007 report for your convenience.

[Duffman]

The Independent Auditors' Report page by Peterson Sullivan PLLC does it for me! I will continue to give 'with fervor' in my usual fashion.

[Andrew]

Not only do I take issue with the honesty of how they collected those unneeded funds, but the increased capitol they gained in '07 are due to the large number of listeners the exceptional on-air talent attract to the station. For them not to be compensated in turn and be payed a median wage is an outrage. KUOW IS NOT A MEDIAN STATION. THEY ARE BEING SHORTED. Sure they could look for new jobs if they so choose but that shouldn't be necessary. That's like your boss saying "I'm not giving you your paycheck, if you want to actualy be given a paycheck, go find a job where they employees receive paychecks." It's a scenario which simply shouldn't exist.

[Duffman]

OMG, it's a scenario called 'market conditions'; you're obviously living in a dream world of Dorothy & Toto. If the paycheck is not good enough and you have the talent you can command more - simple as that!

[Andrew]

I just explained that KUOW shouldn't, not that they couldn't, be tempting the talent to explore the market, you retard. Please keep typing stupid things this is fun.

[Duffman]

Your call on who is 'stupid' and who is a 'retard' makes as much sense as your rationale on this subject. But keep trying to sound intelligent, it's always worth the effort.

[joanie]

Well, Duffman, you like the "decider" approach to everything apparently. Some of us like transparency, honesty, and clarity.

But, you like the "daddy" model, you're getting it.

[Duffman]

Huh?

[Andrew]

Duff, you haven't challenged any of my rational. Give it your best shot. I'm waiting.

[Duffman]

&dru, assuming you will stay away from name calling (otherwise I will to not converse) I will simply say that KUOW owes nothing more to it's employees than what they 'bargained' for. Apparently they bargained to exchange their 'life's energy' for a certain remuneration. Are they NOT getting that? If so, they have recourse...I'm all for they're 'organizing' if they desire and if they feel that will help their cause. But I also feel they should 'always' be prepared to be replaced at will (or in accordance with their particular agreement). Now, doesn't that seem fair and equitable in a free market society.

[Andrew]

I already acknowledged what you're point and wrote it off. What you're describing is a race to the bottom. Just because children can assemble shoes in Indonesia doesn't mean they should.

[Another guy]

This is the big scandal? The financial report is hard to find on the website? That's some serious investigative journalism, guys.

[Duffman]

Comparing 'children..shoes in Indo..' with 'bargaining' by adults in a free society is not a fair comparison and you know it.
I'm sorry &dru but you are wrong on this issue if you think KUOW employees are due any thing more than what they 'bargained' for. This is not 'forced' labor we're talking about.

[Andrew]

I agree that they should seek employment elsewhere I just don't think they should have to. Why is management even puting them in that position? Just like smoking is legal, it doesn't mean you should it.

[Andrew]

Wow, that's some serious commentary Another Guy. That realy cuts to the bone.

[sam]

Bla'm's piece didn't address the wages issue or the emplyees' clmplaints. I hope he will sometime. These staffers need a union.But that is for another time.

[Duffman]

It's very easy to mis-judge management unless you really know the inner-workings of the Company. Do we 'really' know what's going on within this entity? I don't think so. I'm satisfied to the point that will give my contribution; obviously if you don't feel that way, -just as the employees have the 'option' to not work there - you have the option of not-giving.

[Andrew]

Duff, you're obviously disagreeing just to disagree, and it's pathetic. All of my critisms are based on widely known information. I'm not guessing about anything.

[Duffman]

Do you know the personalities and inner-workings of the organization? Do you know how they measure return on investment? Do you know how personnel interacts with each other and outside sources? etc., etc.
I think there is much you don't know in this regard. So I guess we can agree to disagree on your rationale about this issue. Continue on in your pursuit of 'reason'.

[Andrew]

I bet you think you sound realy smart. Are you going to respond to my specific and detailed points or are you going to keep babbling meaningless and vague BS? You're too cowardly to do any real debating.

[Duffman]

Nope, don't think I sound really smart at all...just correct simply as that, you lose again. Better luck next time.

[Andrew]

The whole issue of claiming you need money when you don't technicly need it being dishonest? Are you going to address that? Hello, moron?

[Duffman]

When you resort to name-calling you lose any semblance of creditability you may otherwise have managed to garner. BUH-bye!
You've proved yourself to be no longer worthy of further dialog.

[Andrew]

Hahhahahahha! Yeah, that's what I thought. Why do you even try?

[sarge]

I get really sick of these personal pissing matches. Can't you stay in the discussion instead of letting it degrade into this petty back and forth?

[Andrew]

That's great. Do you have anything to say on the subject at hand?

[sparky]

come on andrew and duffman...let it go.

[Andrew]

Who cares? It's not like anybody else has anything to say.

[Duffman]

Yeah...you're right sparks/sarg I was doin Okay there for a while and then let myself slip into the no-fly zone :o) - will get back on track.

[LouAnn]

ANDREW & DUFFMAN did stay on topic which was KUOW. Who in the fuck appointed you as hall monitor anyway.

[UnionYes]

Roth says it's transparent? Who is he kidding? Why are the actual numbers so hard to see.

He railed on KEXP (in the weekly) for not being transparent -- I wou;d assume that related to revealing their bonuses since that was the focus of much of the article --but when staff asked about mgt bonuses? He responded that there were none.

It reminds me of the Nixon White House. The coverup is far worse than the crime.

All companies need reserves but AFTER their investments in services they still had a big profit for the last years.

The 07 figures are done yet they won't say what they are. So I ask again, when other stations post such profits they lay off the begging but not KUOW.

[Justin Atheropinion]

Waitaminute! That's a lie!

KUOW has stopped pledge drives early in the past. I'm all for the Union--but I'd like an honest one, please.

Jeez, KUOW runs a successful public radio station and everybody's complaining? They run fewer pledge days than others, and it's not enough?

They post their financials, and it's not prominent enough? Andrew makes one significant post and then spends the rest of his time playing childish "FU" games and then criticizes everyone for lack of content?

So, what we WANT (I presume) is a PR station perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy, that depends on volunteers putting out sub-par product on a regular basis? THEN, and ONLY then, will we feel good about giving money to a largely listener (not tax-dependent) supported COMMERCIAL-FREE (I know I'm stretching that point a bit with the day sponsorships) radio station that is not perpetual oldies, country recycling, or empty space-filler (most talk radio) but broadcasts in-depth discussion on a round the clock basis.

Is THAT what we're saying here? We want poverty and incompetence or the same old s**t.

(Ingrates)

[Andrew]

I just want honesty. If they've met their financial goals and are looking to redecorate the place they should say as much. People deserve to know what they're donating money to. It might help them decide how much they can spare.

If I thought KUOW was going to go off the air tomorrow I'd feel a little more inclined to donate then if they had enough raw capital and assets to stay afloat for a whole friggin year, but then they know that, which is exactly why they don't tell us. What part of dishonest don't people understand?

[Justin Atheropinion]

It's just that your reasoning is so simplistic. They are asking for money for the programming, which they are charged by PBS, APR and everybody else to air. This is correct. If they're making more through donations, pledges, selling people's old cars, or whatever...and have enough for a friggin' year, that does not make them solvent for the next year. Radio stations are beasts that eat money, and you have to look ahead or your station dies. What part of that don't people understand?

Look, what gets me is they're successful and everybody's complaining about it! They've got a couple mil in the banks--how long is that going to last, concievably? Do we wait until it goes to $0.00, before we trust them with dollars that we donate (as opposed to taxes which are just taken)? Or do we see that by withholding funds, anything that comes up, (say, an idiotic FCC fine, or the cost of a blanket APR contract goes up because Keillor's disappointed with how much the movie of "A Prairie Home Companion" made), the less money there will be overall. And the less money you have limits your choices. We're all familiar with that concept, I assume...

This should be the model for every station that doesn't run mortgage ads and play last week's big hit five times an hour to get by! Frankly, there's more dishonesty in an hour's worth of commercials on radio than any number of pledge drives.

And the other thing is, if you don't want to contribute, Andrew, nobody's twisting your arm, DON'T! This is purely voluntary.

Explain to me how it isn't. You can't. You've got nothing to complain about, Andrew. Other than hurt feelings that nobody at KUOW's telling you what they're doing with your $25.00.

[Rev]

>So, what we WANT (I presume) is a PR station perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy, that depends on volunteers putting out sub-par product on a regular basis?<

We used to have one of those in Seattle -- it was called KRAB. The output ranged from brilliant to unlistenable. It finally died for lack of support (among other reasons).

There is plenty of evidence that KUOW is running a fiscally prudent and repsonsible operation that many people in this area prefer to commercial radio. But the things that are disturbing are first, that they are pleading for donations to support a well-endowed and well-equipped operation, and second, that they have chosen to put money into reserves and new stations rather than increasing salaries and/or using more of the income from reserves to cover operating expenses.

Somehow, there's something distasteful about hearing pleas for donations when you know that they have those millions of dollars. Of course, the ideal would be to increase the reserve to a point where in kicks out enough to pay all their expenses, but that's hardly likely.

But it does seem like maybe they should announce that they have enough in the reserve fund, and drop back to even less on-air fundraising, rather than continuing to run a surplus every year.

[sparky]

Is KBOO still on the air in Portland? That was a cool station in the 80s

[Lowell]

Listen to their pledge drive and you will hear that they need money for their daily operations. No mention is made of their significant capitol expenses. Folks, check out their 2007 audit on the page with Board info.

And while you are at it, go to Guidestar and check out their IRS form 990. It can be found at:

http://www.guidestar.org
Type in KUOW in the search bar and click in the Form 990 column on the right.

Their 2007 audit shows almost a 2 million dollar increase in assets ie - a surplus of about that much in the past year.

As a listener being asked to pledge, how many are aware from the on-air pitch that there is this level of surplus that you are financing? In other words, donating substantially more than what is needed for daily operations? Nothing wrong with a surplus but there is when the station does not volunteer the information and the plans for what to do with it. Look at the annual report, which is designed for the public, rather than the audit for the Board and those who choose to digest it - and you will see obtuse pie charts that make no mention of surplus. In the past two years they have increased their assets by over 3.3 million dollars, using less than half of that in capital expenses.

Should listeners be asked if they wish to fund growth in the form of two new stations in the south sound? Should KUOW make a clear statement as to what they are doing with the money? There are perhaps three uses for money: To pay operating expenses, to fund capitol improvements, and to increase reserves or raise an endowment. They are doing all three, though it is not clear if the third is intentional or just a byproduct of their successful fundraising efforts.

Their on-air drives patronize the listeners. They have likely made a calculated decision to not clearly state the facts of where the money is going, and in so doing, imply that the money raised keeps them going day to day. In reality, they are growing their business in substantial ways, not just staying afloat. As a listener, I deserve to made my decision to donate based upon knowledge of the facts. I might want to contribute to their efforts, but not support a management team that appears to be nervous about their actions.

[joanie]

And Duff, Hillary is "the mommy" - at least you can put your trust in "mommy" and well as "daddy."

And you put your faith in Roth - another daddy - without caring if he's honest or has integrity. You see the problem?

I don't care if the employees get a whole lot more money. I'm a teacher who works hard than any one of them for about the same money I think.

Entertainers are overpaid generally. KUOW hosts are underpaid for the industry. I don't have a strong opinion on they pay structure or benefits because I do agree they chose their profession. Just as I did mine. If they are so unhappy, then do what Vincent did and leave.

But, it is dishonest to beg that your favorite show might be leaving if you don't support it when the money is in the bank already. Although, I suppose one could make the argument (not you because you don't make arguments) that if a show isn't supported, nobody cares about it. That's one of the problems with begging for money to keep a show on the air, isn't it?

[Duffman]

Well, ms joanie I try to have what I feel is a decent conversation with you and all you do is put me down in a condescending manner. I suppose that makes you feel good, but it doesn't make me feel that great.

[StarMonson]

Tommy 008
Nice to see that Chuck set you straight.
How precious about the 86 beat up Jag you have up on blocks in the front yard.
Meanwhile my man tools around town in a brand new Jag.
Oh yes when can we expect to see that you got published. You ride Dori as a little man since he has stayed a big fish in a small pond. How about you? When will you spread the wings and get that book you brag on published. hmmmmm?

[joanie]

Duff, more whining. Fight back a little. Give me something with some substance. Provide something to refute what I say. Is there nothing you can offer to define your thinking? Condescending is your take because you don't have anything else to offer.

Asking for evidence, reasoning, anything to support your posts rather than faith is not condescension. It is probing and demanding. If you wish to conclude that I'm condescending, I offer you the label "frustrating."

You are frustratingly absent interesting details. I'm done with the bun. Give us some meat with mustard FCS.

[PugetSound]

Duff sez:
"Well, ms joanie I try to have what I feel is a decent conversation with you and all you do is put me down in a condescending manner. I suppose that makes you feel good, but it doesn't make me feel that great.

Posted by: Duffman | October 12, 2007 at 09:25 AM"

Duff, she doesn't even have the grace to say sorry over her earlier crap dance/smear on you.
What makes you think she is any more mature? Or intellectually honest. Your dealing with Joanie.
Not to worry, the big wind from birch bay will be back with a severe case of posting diarea by Monday.

[Tommy008]

StarMonson- I warned everyone the book was in the works. I'm reworking it after a delay when i was expanding my education into finance and making over 200% in the stock market in calendar year 2006 last year, with no advice from any brokers. Also, I'm now rich enough to where I don't have to work at all or publish a book to live well, if I don't choose to. I doubt that Dori has achieved either . What will you do when I announce it's publication, jackass? Apologize? I ride Dori because he's a callous,meanspirited, cowardly bully, not because he's a big fish in a little pond. p.s. The Jag is in a covered, locked, warm garage, not on blocks. Nice try , though. Never try to out-insult a professional.

[Tommy008]

I caught Dori's show where he allowed Ann Coulter to come on and defend herself. He had a giddy, girly glee in his voice as if he was already imagining Ann mounting his freely offered buttocks with her big strap-on, 8 hours before his appointment to slip away from Star and the girls for his rendezvous with her at the downtown hotel.

[Tommy008]

Producer Phil- Why the dreamy look Dori? Dori- "i was just dreaming of Ann and her big ten-inch,uh I mean her big new blockbuster book....."