Meetings & Discussions | How Did We Get Here? |
What Options Are You Considering?
New options being considered: Pine | Maple | Plum | Fig | Walnut | Elm
| Spruce | Cedar | Poplar | Chestnut
Note: Comments on this page are now closed.
Click here to go to the new Comments page.
Programming
- The focus of the format would be talk and information, with a strong emphasis on peace and social justice subjects. It would be distinct from “NPR-type” public radio programming by virtue of this topic focus.
- National and global content resources would include PRX, the Pacifica AudioPort, and the international community radios that are represented in AMARC. Major public radio distributors other than PRX would not be part of the mix.
- Local content would be driven by collaboration with established community organizations with a similar mission.
- Many speakers appear in the SF Bay Area and Monterey Bay area that address these topics. Part of the station mission would be to record as many of these talks as possible for broadcast. This is something that has languished due to the diminishing capacity of Pacifica Radio since the 1980’s.
- kusp.org would resemble “IndyBay” web sites, with a mix of station produced content and links/reposts from other independent media web sites. If we had the rights to distribute the talks mentioned earlier, this format offers the potential to create a curated online experience of the spoken word on these topics.
- Local content partners might be able to support the station through use of “Paid PSA’s,” a type of sponsored content that KUSP has not offered in the past because of the perception that sponsored content is contrary to editorial independence. If however the station was assertively aligning itself with a particular point of view, the conventional concept of editorial independence might be less meaningful.
Signal
- Since the appeal of this format and the revenue potential through membership and business sponsorship would be smaller than some other options, the Santa Cruz signal footprint might be a better fit than the 88.9 signal; relinquishing the 88.9 signal would make it possible to retire debt and stake this scenario to sufficient funds to get off the ground.
Personnel
- With much work to do around content production and curation, minimum paid staffing would be expected to be around 5 full-time equivalent employees, slightly above the minimum threshold required for CPB grants, but smaller than KUSP is now.
- Total volunteer participation might be similar to KUSP’s current levels, but almost all roles would change, because the programming mission would be so different.
- There would be the potential for integrating some staff support functions with local content partners (that is, other peace and social justice organizations).
Important questions/concerns
- It’s not certain another frequency is available if 88.9 is sold.
- This is a radical re-think of KUSP’s mission and would be a departure from most of the programming and public service ideas that have defined the station since it started.
- However, it aligns very closely to the founding principles of listener-supported radio in the U.S. as pioneered by KPFA in 1949; further, it embraces technology and networks of interest that were nonexistent in that era of Pacifica’s operation.
- The expected size of the audience would be smaller than other scenarios with more widespread appeal. On the other hand, there is a clear philanthropic case that could resonate with donors having large giving capacity and a strong interest in peace and social justice. It might be an especially strong case for planned giving (making a bequest to the station as part of estate planning), though the station would not expect to benefit from those for many years.
- Would it be financially possible to make such a model work and retain the 88.9 signal? Are these subjects of as much concern to listeners in Watsonville, Salinas or Monterey as to listeners in Santa Cruz (which has a high concentration of peace and social justice organizations, some with relatively high resources for that type of nonprofit)?
- Is this so far removed from the expectations we’ve built up for KUSP over 43 years of broadcasting than the community would reject it?
- Would this kind of station have a place for any of KUSP’s most established local programs?
May 28th, 2015 at 9:23 am
From what I understand, it is highly improbable that another license would be available, in any practical sense, in the non-commercial FM band in the Santa Cruz service area. This is one of the reasons that the existing license is so valuable, and a major reason NOT to sell or lease the license.
Further, it seems to me that limiting the content to primarily peace and justice issues would ignore other voices of the Central Coast, and work against the stated KUSP vision of “…presenting a broad range of programming reflecting a multitude of perspectives.”
May 31st, 2015 at 8:02 pm
About Fig.
Limiting content to “peace and justice” issues ignores environmental issues. Poor idea. It also ignores other issues that are important throughout the neighborhoods of Santa Cruz County — traffic and the noise it generates, drugs, crime, growth, lack of maintenance of parks…for starters.
June 1st, 2015 at 9:38 am
FYI, if by “Santa Cruz signal footprint” this plan refers to K207CN, the 89.3 “FM Translator” repeater signal in Santa Cruz proper? Translators cannot originate programming. So KUSP could not continue to broadcast on 89.3FM without somehow obtaining access to a “primary” station that can originate the programming, and then K207CN could repeat it.
This is not impossible to do, but it likely will neither be easy nor cheap…mostly because it is impossible for KUSP to apply for and get a new, smaller, FM signal. The FCC only accepts applications for such things during “filing windows” that typically happen once a decade (the last was in 2007, but there’s no guarantee another will happen anytime near 2017).
One option would be to purchase an existing AM or FM signal, but the cost would largely offset any revenue obtained from selling KUSP’s main 88.9 license.
Another option would be to lease the HD2 channel from another license in or around Santa Cruz, assuming one is available to be leased. WMVY does this with Rhode Island Public Radio. Again, this might be reasonably inexpensive, or it might be very expensive, but it likely won’t be free.
June 1st, 2015 at 12:41 pm
The selling of 88.9 is mostly for paying off the debt. Needs to be determined how much would be left in the kitty to buy a new frequency. Most likely some large scale funding would still be needed to complete the purchase of a new signal. Programming could then be discussed once income sources are reasonably estimated.
June 1st, 2015 at 5:00 pm
If we are to use the talk format discussing local issues that people can actually see in their own community is the right approach.( Elm) Do not sell our license or translators. It will be the death of KUSP as we know it. Roberta
June 2nd, 2015 at 10:41 pm
One always needs straw men to shoot down and this is one of those. There is no mention of local news, and who would want to get their news from such a biased, filtered source. KUSP listeners will veto this as against the principles of the station they know.
June 16th, 2015 at 6:43 pm
We were told last night at the Board of Directors’ meeting at Louden Nelson Center that this and all the other proposals on the Participate blog are no longer being considered. There are new options being considered and there was an anonymous donation of $100,000 yesterday that will fund the station for approximately another 90 days with some staff cuts that the Board considered in executive session last night. I have no news on what happened. The Board should direct the staff to update the web site so we all know what’s going on.
You can send a message to the Board of Directors by using this link:
http://kusp.org/board-contact.shtml