Considerations about the pledge drive results

[Kerry]

Considerations about the pledge drive results

HPR did not meet its initial 10/2014 scheduled pledge drive goal. As a relationship-leadership communication-skills coach I offer the following considerations in support of HPR's continued success.

Just now I surfed the home page of HPR and could not easily find the name of HPR's CEO or of any staff member. If there's a link to communicate directly to the CEO it's not easily seen. This tucked away, not easily found, link was a conscious decision made in a HPR board meeting. The placement of a link to an organization's CEO name either encourages or discourages open, honest, and spontaneous communication and questions, suggestions, and feedback. Often negative feedback about employees is hidden from it's CEO by thwarting employees.

The ideal organization is one in which its members/supporters have an experience of being in-communication with everyone concerned, especially its leaders, of having a sense of partnership, of co-ownership, that one's suggestions might be acknowledged, valued, possibly implemented.

Organizations such as HPR that do not actively elicit (request) feedback and suggestions, actually support listeners in stuffing their thoughts, suggestions and preferences. Stuffed thought about raising money cause continued struggles.

I believe what's missing is an official password-protected HPR-1 & HPR-2 Forum for Donors (everyone can read the posts & replies) and, a free Blog for all listeners (everyone can read and post). 

One of the reasons I have this blog is to empty my mind of thoughts having to do with HPR. I know there are others who, like myself, have no sense of being in-communication with HPR, Michael Titterdon, (HPR's CEO), or its staff. Most listeners agree that with few exceptions most of the programming is terrific, however, there are a few changes that could make listening more participatory and more interactive, more pleasurable; such suggestions could be communicated easily via a HPR forum.

For example:

A few years ago I couldn't find the salary of the CEO of HPR. I wanted to know if it was more/less than the salaries of other non-profit CEOs. That I had to write several emails just to get the answer was frustrating. If HPR had its own forum subscribers could see what questions others have asked, perhaps I'm the only one who wants to know.  FYI: His salary (plus several confusing, quite generous, monetary benefits) is more in keeping with a for-profit org rather than that of someone committed to service for the sake for service.

Some Considerations:

I bet some listener has a solution to satisfactory funding, a process that won't irritate existing members; HPR has yet to create space for such suggestions to be delivered. I suspect that the ideal funding solution would require a commitment of the CEO and staff to be in two-way communication with its members. 

Presently, there is no sense of belonging, of partnership or co-ownership, even though the name espouses "Public." It's a given that one doesn't listen HPR for Pahoa lava flow reports (a genuine public emergency).

I'm hoping that other listeners were upset with the sneaky pledge drive announcements that we had to endure weeks before the actual dates of the drive. Words to the effect—if you pledge now it will shorten the drive. This was a sneaky way to get additional air time for solicitations—it's insulting to conscious members for whom such questionable tactics are off-putting. My sense is that some HPR staff member brought up this consideration in a planning meeting and they were invalidated; if none did, then I suggest the staff expand its definition of service. Upsetting listeners (so as to survive) is not service. I'm certain many like myself simply find other stations to listen to during the drive; no doubt some don't return to their habit of listening to HPR.

I recommend that Michael have someone else do the pledge drive announcements. He is too attached to his own beautiful resonant voice, so much so that he has no sense that some listeners actually cringe when they hear, "Hello, this is Michael Titterdon." It generates a Pavlovian-type response associated with begging and program interruptions. "Oops, time to find another station for two weeks." What's needed is a voice that's common, not easily remembered.

I have no sense of having a say in what programs are broadcasted on this public radio. It's simply too much work to voice appreciations, objections, or suggestions. The absence of direct feedback, via a forum, to the presenters rips them off, they don't get to experience completion (acknowledgment).

I have no sense of having a say about the quality and personality of the announcers we must listen to. Dave Lawrence's presentation would rate a C+ in a radio announcer's class (unless he was assigned to imitate a pop AM station announcer). He slurs his words and drags out the ends of words. He adds "aaaa"s and "aaand"s as though he were a DJ for an AM pop music station. This reveals disrespect for the educated and knowledgeable listeners. He tries to be casual (local) and it comes across as unprofessional.

Other announcers (apparently former elementary school teachers) talk down to us with condescension; this doesn't speak well for those who hire them or of their supervisors.

Many listeners have come to dislike the repetitive blurbs, ". . . listen and see." etc. It's not just that we "members of the choir" are forced to listen to this throughout each day, day-after-day, but, that some staff member at HPR has brought up this irritation at a staff meeting and he/she was ignored and invalidated. What then is the possibility that any staff member would listen to and "get" a viewer's objection? The staff knows that people are conditioned to put up with such irritations because it takes too much work to submit feedback.

Recently Michael Titterdon, during his first explanations for the failed pledge goal, unconsciously made us viewers wrong, covertly blaming the public for his inability to conduct a successful pledge drive. It didn't feel good. What got communicated (not with words) was, —your punishment is, we'll interrupt your listening pleasure by submitting you to more beggings. 

I trust that Michael will get that listeners have delivered some powerful non-verbal communications, ones that could have been delivered responsibly via an official HPR Forum/Blog. When listeners must stuff their considerations, they have no option but to communicate their withholds non-verbally. Like parents (disappointed with their educations) HPR listeners force Michael to pathetically beg for satisfactory fundings.

For example:

I know of no school that provides face-to-face clearings between teachers and parents at the end of each semester, consequently parents stuff their considerations and vote non-verbally for lower salaries. Ergo, teachers without honest feedback about what didn't work will continue doing their imitation of communication for another semester. And, Dave Lawrence will continue slurring and other announcers will unconsciously keep delivering content  condescendingly.

More to come.