Questions, Answers, and Analysis (part 3)

Here is part 3 of our analysis of David Strand's "Questions and Answers."

KFUO-AM paid $66,000 last year to syndicate Sunday-night “Issues” on a dozen or so
Bott and Salem radio stations. Doesn’t the station also pay to syndicate such short-form
programs as “By the Way,” “Front-Porch Parenting,” “The Meyer Minute,” “Portals of
Prayer,” and “Today’s Verse”?

Outside of production costs—such as putting the material on CDs and mailing the CDs—
KFUO-AM pays nothing for the syndicated airing of these programs on more than 600
stations across the country. Participating stations play them for free.

Analysis:  The question sets up a false comparison of "apples and oranges."  Issues, Etc. was a one-hour syndicated show.  The programs listed above are very short filler programs.  This is like comparing short community news articles that local newspapers use to fill column space to a full feature-length article.

Why were the “Issues” archives initially removed from the KFUO-AM website when the
show was discontinued?

Once the decision to discontinue “Issues” had become public, modifications had to be
made to the KFUO-AM website to reflect the changes in the programming schedule and
to remove references and links to the discontinued program.

It is standard radio practice to remove all references and recorded material (even
something as minor, for example, as prerecorded public-service announcements)
involving “personalities” no longer with the station. Many things had to happen quickly
on the afternoon of March 18 to make the necessary changes to the programming
schedule on the AM website and to remove references and links to “Issues, Etc.”
After removing “Issues” from the lineup and website, an initial consideration was to
possibly keep the archives off the site, recognizing that many archives were available on
the Internet, in transcripts, on CDs, and elsewhere, and that there would be a cost savings
on the bandwidth fees. However, noting the demand for the archives after the
cancellation of the program, station management restored the archives as soon as possible
the next day.

When the archives were restored on March 19, the high volume of downloading caused
the KFUO website to freeze (crash) several times. Of course, the archives were not
available during the times when the website was frozen. As a means of dealing with the
“crashes” and the slowness of audio-file transfers owing to Web traffic, load problems,
and the apparent use of download accelerators (which heavily tax the bandwidth
capabilities), the “Issues” archives were placed on a dedicated server to try to speed up
the transfers and avoid crashes. LCMS technology staff has been attending to these
matters all along to make the situation as workable as possible.

Analysis:  The answer clarifies what happened with the web archives of Issues, Etc.  Mr. Strand acknowledges that the archives were initially taken down, and he reveals that initial consideration was given to keeping them permanently off the KFUO site.  He states that this consideration was made in view of "many archives available on the internet."  In other words, the Issues, Etc. archives were intentionally taken down.  While this may be "standard radio practice," it seems unusual in this case since the Issues, Etc. archive represented a unique body of work consisting of topical papers and live interviews.

The official Issues, Etc. archive on the internet was Issuesetc.org. The owners of this site, Robert and Ken Meyer, were ordered by KFUO station manager Chuck Rathert to take down their site at the same time the archives at KFUO-AM were removed.  Furthermore, the Meyers, who were under contractual agreement with the Synod and KFUO, have never received permission to restore Issuesetc.org.  The archive site that exists today is essentially a reconstructed site from listener provided files.  Finally, Issuesetc.org was not an independent site but was linked to the Issues, Etc. archive at kfuoam.org.  While other sites had the written material, only the KFUO-AM site had the audio files.

It appears that KFUO was not adequately prepared to deal with the cancellation Issues, Etc. and the "standard radio practice" of removing all material pertaining to the canceled show.  The ensuing technical difficulties would indicate that a hasty or ill-communicated decision was made, leaving station personnel without a clear plan of action.  A big question behind the timing of the decision is the haste and apparent secrecy that was involved.  The mishandling of the web site indicates that station management was not likely aware of what was happening until the last minute.

What was the total listenership of the one-hour broadcast of the Sunday-night syndicated
edition of “Issues, Etc.”?

We don’t have statistics. If the stations we paid to syndicate “Issues” on Sunday nights
subscribe to a ratings service, we are not privy to their numbers. We do know that
Sunday night between 9 and 10 o’clock is not an especially desirable or popular time to
be on the radio (which is one reason why this time was chosen; it was relatively
inexpensive). Listeners to the first hour were always encouraged to listen to the second
hour on the Internet. However, in analyzing the listener traffic, we found that the second hour of Sunday-night “Issues,” available only on the Internet, had a peak number of
online listeners in February of 39. In fact, we don’t even know if these 39 streamers were
listening to “Issues.” The peak number of 39 was the highest number of streamers for
any KFUO-AM show on any Sunday in February.

Analysis:  The question is a good one, but it is not answered.  Mr. Strand admits that he has no data on the Sunday night show.  In place of hard data, he makes an assumption about the audience size on Sunday night between 9 and 10 o'clock.  Mr. Strand cites the live streaming audience for the second hour, which would be at 10-11 PM (Central time).  This neglects the fact that internet listeners are more likely to listen to a download at their convenience than a live stream, no matter what the time.  The mention of the fact that the 39 live streamers constituted the "largest number" of any KFUO-AM show on any Sunday in February seems less than sincere. 

"Damning with faint praise" is not the same as "putting the best construction on everything," especially when the data are not properly presented and analyzed.

In giving the reasons for the show’s discontinuation, why was the language changed in
the original posted statement from “programmatic and business reasons” to
“programmatic and stewardship reasons”?

Though there is nothing wrong with the word “business,” and though the church engages
in business affairs on a necessary basis, the word can have negative associations in some
people’s minds, particularly in the milieu of the church and its ministries. “Stewardship”
implies much the same thing as “business”—fiscal responsibility in managing one’s
resources—without the potential negative connotations.

Analysis:  The question and answer appear to makes this a matter of semantics, but semantics are very important, since words convey meaning and intent.  The fact that "stewardship" and "business" "imply the same thing in the mind of a synodical official is troubling.  Stewardship is a matter of faithfulness to a trust; business is about profits and losses.  This is more than a matter of "negative connotations in some peoples' minds" (here the responsibility for correct understanding is shifted from the speaker to the hearer).  It is indicative of how one looks at the Synod and its missions and ministries.

The semantic shift is symptomatic of the larger issue that is at stake in the Issues, Etc. matter.  The issue is that the synod's missions and ministries are being handled as a business would treat them in terms of profits and losses.  The Synod itself is being run as a business, with heavy reliance on corporate consultants, and if Synod's financial condition is a dire as it seems, it is not being run very well.  If the Synod were indeed a business, upper management would long have been called on the carpet or have been fired.  If the Synod is a stewardship, then those who are elected and appointed as stewards need to give an account of their stewardship and not hide their decisions behind executive session.

So what were the “programmatic” reasons?

For 84 years, the key focus of LCMS radio ministry via KFUO-AM has been Gospel
outreach. Unquestionably, “Issues, Etc.” (like all of our shows) benefited both our
members and reached some unchurched people, as validated by recent testimonials.
Broadcast Sunday-morning services provide worship opportunities for the homebound
and others. Programs such as “Law and Gospel” and “The Bible Study” serve to enrich
our members as well as spread the Gospel to those who are unchurched. The responsible
management question is whether similar or greater ministry can be achieved with this
media ministry at a more affordable cost than that incurred by “Issues, Etc.”

Analysis:  This is an excellent question.  Unfortunately it is not answered.  The examples provided are again a comparison of "apples vs oranges."  No other show on KFUO-AM dealt with apologetics and current events, nor did it interview leading authorities in their various fields.  Issues, Etc. was a tough-minded program that dealt with issues that needed to be discussed, even if it offended some people or made others uncomfortable.

What has KFUO-AM put in the place of Issues, Etc.?   A light, friendly conversational talk show.  Is Mr. Strand claiming that "The Afternoon Show" is a "similar or greater ministry" than Issues, Etc.?  The unmistakable implication is that the Synod has no programming interest in apologetics, polemics, and tough-minded Christianity.  Sadly, this seems to parallel the "seeker-sensitive" model that is being promoted as a template for congregations in the Synod to follow as their example.

Why were the “Issues” broadcast-audience numbers cited in the lcms.org statement so
outdated?

As explained in the statement published on the Synod’s website, for years, the broadcast
ratings for “Issues” and all other KFUO-AM shows were predictably low and static.
Sometimes, the station did not register enough listeners to even show up on the chart. In
2005, station managers (even then in cost-savings mode) saw no justification in
continuing to pay for reports that never told them anything new. This was three years
ago. Since then, there is no sign that “Issues” or any other AM show has significantly
climbed the charts in the St. Louis market. The shows are essentially the same now as
they were then. Since 2005, gifts to “Issues” have stayed on the same plateau—not an
indication of a growing broadcast-audience base.

Analysis:  The question and answer are irrelevant.  The question is not why the audience numbers were outdated, but why outdated numbers were cited as a justification for canceling the show.  This answer reveals the assumptions.  There was "no sign" that Issues, Etc. or any other AM show had significantly climbed the charts in the St. Louis market.  What "sign" would that be?  There is no hard data offered to support this statement.  The "sign" appears to be that gifts to Issues, Etc. had remained constant since 2005.  If there is no direct connection between internet listeners and donors, why should there be a direct connection between radio listeners and donors.

The fact remains that Mr. Strand used 3-4 year old audience data as justification for canceling Issues, Etc.

Why completely cancel “Issues, Etc.”? Why not just cancel the Sunday-night syndicated
version of it?

The Sunday-night syndication costs ($66,000 in the last fiscal year) were a fraction of the
total program expense for “Issues.” The savings gained would have been insufficient to
reach the deep cost-reduction target required.

Analysis:  While it may not have reached the "deep cost-reduction target required," it would have made a 26% dent in Issues, Etc. $250,000 reported "shortfall."  Of course, Mr. Strand admits that he has no idea how large the Sunday syndication audience was, and Issues, Etc. was not given the opportunity adequately to test the fund raising capacity of the syndication audience with its Reformation Club and the Issues 300 campaign.  In fact, there is no indication whatsoever that any attempt was made to salvage Issues, Etc. while attempting to reach the deep cost-reduction targets that were required.

Puzzling in this answer is the need for urgency to achieve this deep cost-reduction target at the end of the fiscal year with the May Board of Directors meeting less than two months away and a special ad hoc committee slated to report on the state of KFUO.  At the best construction, it would appear that Mr. Strand made a desperate, ill-conceived move to improve the state of KFUO's finances prior to the Board of Directors meeting.

Why did you discontinue “Issues, Etc.” and terminate Rev. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz
during Holy Week?

In retrospect, one can only regret the timing of the cancellation. Although there is never
a good day to lose one’s job, anytime close to a major church festival, before or after,
certainly may be perceived as a worse time. In this case, if we had waited until early
April, we would have been obligated to pay another $5,500 in monthly Sunday-night
syndication fees. But again, in retrospect, such savings pale in comparison to the valid
point that Holy Week was not the best time to effect this decision.

Analysis:  The question deals with the appropriateness of the timing, given that the Synod is a church organization.  The answer appears to express regret, but it is in a rather distant "one can only regret...."  The regret is offset by the suggestion that the inappropriateness is a matter of perception rather than fact.  The stated reason is that it saved $5,500 in monthly syndication fees.  When you put the two thoughts together, they sound like this:  "While regrettable with respect to timing, the move did save the Synod $5,500."  It also cost the Synod two expensive severance packages and an enormous amount of goodwill.

The liturgical year, with all its subtle nuances, is not part of the non-liturgical type of Christianity that is being held up by our synodical leadership.  The seasons of Advent and Lent along with the solemnities of Holy Week are not on the purpose-driven agenda.  The sad truth is that $5,500 seems to be the going price for Holy Tuesday.

The issue of timing is not really Holy Week.  Holy Week simply added insult to injury.  The real question is why the sudden, clandestine cancellation of the show and termination of its host and producer?  This sort of action is warranted only in a state of emergency, such as the host blurting out obscenities on the air or engaging in conduct unbecoming for the position he holds.  A decision based on simple economics could have been done much more openly and deliberately, with full consultation of the BCS and the BoD.

(to be continued)

Comments

[Tim Kuehn]

"It also cost the Synod two expensive severance packages..."

Not if they're tied to "gag orders" which the IE personnel have so far refused to sign.

[Adam E.]

I believe the sudden, clandestine cancellation of Issues and termination of our two brothers does reveal a state of emergency among Synodical leadership. Maybe to their ears Pr. Wilken was blurting out 'obscenities'. To pietistic or liberal Christian ears "Christ alone, Grace alone, Faith alone, Scripture alone" are obscene words.