How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.
Because making profit isn't the goal of PBS.
Save PBS. It makes us safer
21–30 of 121 posts
Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer
#22How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.
PBS has been facing funding cuts for a long time. Unlike other groups, PBS has actually made significant changes and no longer relies on federal money as much as it used to.
Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer
#23Why can't people just donate directly? I set up recurring payments for donation-based channels I watch on Youtube, so not sure why this can't be the same.
They can. People do. We donate $10 monthly to TPT, Twin Cities Public Television (the local PBS affiliate).
Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer
#24Why can't people just donate directly? I set up recurring payments for donation-based channels I watch on Youtube, so not sure why this can't be the same.
People do. That's what the pledge drives and "brought to you by viewers like you" commonly heard on PBS are about.
Different local stations rely on difference funding sources. Stations in smaller or rural markets would have a harder time existing on direct donations alone.
Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are commercials.
What? Care to back up your claim at all instead of just traipsing in and saying "no"? I watch PBS every day and they are most certainly not commercials as your parent comment says. They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo. Usually one of those sentences is "Company xxx is proud to support PBS".
Dictionary.com says a commercial is "a paid advertisement or promotional announcement." Companies pay PBS, they get an announcement promoting the company. It's a commercial. If Company xxx just wanted to do great things, it could easily give money and seek no acknowledgement (the same way that, ahem, viewers give money and get no on-air acknowledgement, not even a flash in crawling text.) But Company xxx wants to be acknowledged. No problem. But it's a commercial.
Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are commercials.
What? Care to back up your claim at all instead of just traipsing in and saying "no"? I watch PBS every day and they are most certainly not commercials as your parent comment says. They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo. Usually one of those sentences is "Company xxx is proud to support PBS".
How is that not a commercial? Just because it's not actively annoying?
Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
PBS has underwriting spots that are only shown between programs and are subject to more restrictions than commercials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting_spot No programming is interrupted, and the only marketing content is typically something like "Brand Flakes is happy to support PBS".
They are commercials.
I implore you to spend an hour consuming public media and then another hour consuming "regular" commercial broadcasting.
There's an unmistakable difference between the commercials employed in commercial broadcasts vs public broadcasts.
I'm sure you can find some reduction of the concept of "commercial" that fits both commercial broadcast advertisements and underwriting posts in public broadcasts, but you'd be missing the point.
Furthermore, the discussion here isn't merely about the ads themselves; it's about the _underlying business model_ of commercial network broadcasting vs public broadcasting. Commercial networks' incentives are squarely in line with the incentives of their advertisers, but publicly-funded broadcasters incentives are more in line with their users, because their funding is derived most directly from them.
Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer
#28[deleted]
Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer
#29How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.
It probably could fund itself and make a profit. But the whole point is that the country is choosing to invest in providing quality media content in the form of high quality detailed reporting and educational content because it's critical for the success of our nation. I think even the most partisan American would have a hard time looking at commercial media and declaring it a resounding success - educational channel…
I remember how twenty years ago, the argument was made that the high quality of educational programming on the Discovery and History Channels made PBS redundant. I didn't agree even then, but at the time there really were some pretty good stuff on those commercial channels.
But it turns out that shows about science and history don't make as much money as nonsense about ancient aliens and so the commercial stations stopped being that educational. It really shows how the commercial model doesn't really work for education.
Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are commercials.
What? Care to back up your claim at all instead of just traipsing in and saying "no"? I watch PBS every day and they are most certainly not commercials as your parent comment says. They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo. Usually one of those sentences is "Company xxx is proud to support PBS".
[deleted]