Listening To Major Donors: Report On KQED Focus Group Project Executive Summary July 2005

1. Listening To Major Donors:Report On KQED Focus Group Project Executive SummaryJuly 2005

2. Methodology • 2 Focus Groups were conducted • San Francisco, at the station — May 2, 2005 • Menlo Park, at the Gunderson, Dettmer law firm — May 17, 2005 • Each group lasted approximately 2 hours with dinner provided • 6-8 participants per group • Mixed gender • Some couples • Selected by development • Invited via letter from Jeff Clarke and follow-up calls • Largely major donors who already have a relationship with the station • Anonymity promised, but not confidentiality • Each group was recorded and a transcript created by a professional transcription expert • In reviewing this Executive Summary the limitations of qualitative research should be kept in mind; for a more complete discussion of these limitations and of the findings from the research please refer to the complete report, dated July 11, 2005

3. What Major Donors Look For When Making A Gift • Good management/executive leadership • Who is on the board of directors • Good steward of funds • Integrity • Transparency • Uses funds wisely • Efficiency in fundraising • Impact • Track record of setting and meeting goals • Sustainability • The most common theme is a personal connection — a tie-in to “me” • “A cause I believe in” • A place where “I’m personally involved” • In my “area of focus”

4. There Does Appear To Be A Movement Toward Giving Pursuant To A Framework “…I think that in order to be most effective in philanthropy we’ve decided to narrow our focus from the huge universe of things we could do in all the different needs there are, to a couple that we can learn about and establish relationships with and then really dig deep into. A significant portion of what we give is in those areas. There are also other charities that we like that we also contribute to but the majority is in the focus areas.” “I tend to think of it along theme lines and focus areas but there’s always something that we find that takes you aside. It’s not rigid.” “…There are so many competing demands on our money and our time that in my case, I set priorities. I try to focus and say I’m just not going to give to everything that asks for it and I’m going to try and focus and really make a difference with the organizations that I do support.”

5. Why Support KQED? • Content is front and center when it comes to reasons major donors say they support the station • However, they are of two minds when it comes to programming • It should be unique — unlike anything else out there • It should be widely watched or listened to • And there are other qualities and programs that make KQED “worthy” • Large audience • KQED.org • Streaming radio • Ability to “go deeper” • Digital options • National stature • “It’s ours and it’s a gorilla. It’s a big player in the public broadcasting world and I’m glad.” • “The role that KQED plays in the broader picture”

6. Content, Front And Center “My favorite [reason] is programming…” “…When I compare the coverage of the arts and sciences, health news on public programming to the standard media, the comparison is overwhelming and striking. KQED is broad and rich, experimental, looking for new areas to get into and the rest of the vast wasteland is so narrow and so tawdry.” “…unique programming…” “…An emphasis on unique and not available anywhere else. Also that it’s innovative, that KQED is willing to do innovative things, whether it’s on the programming side or even on the technology side...” “The fact that it’s a different voice from other broadcasts is right up there at the top…” “…the unbiased viewpoint, the global perspective, regional information that you get...”

7. KQED.org Appears To Be The Most Widely Known Of The “Non-Broadcast” Programs • KQED.org was widely known and appeared to be appreciated • EdNet was known to some, but not all “I think it’s cool! It’s important to be reaching out to the community for education and hopefully bringing up another generation of listeners to public radio and watching public TV.” “I like the particular emphasis on underserved communities.” • The community outreach program was far less known and the description participants were given did not appear to adequately describe the program. After the moderator provided additional (and possibly inaccurate) information, the reaction appeared quite positive. “I have a very positive reaction to it because it enhances the education and dialogue around issues that impact a particular community. In fact, that’s the one that I knew about. I think it’s a very valuable service to the community.” “I look at it as…a natural progression from radio and TV. What is the purpose of radio and TV programming but to disseminate information, ideas and so taking it a step further seems to enhance what you’re already doing.”

8. Pledge And Underwriting Are Oft-Cited Examples Of Why KQED May Not Be Worthy Of More Support • Nearly everyone complains about pledge but most appear to see it as a necessary evil • There is a perception that both pledge and underwriting have increased substantially in amount over recent years

9. KQED Does Not Appear To Be Perceived As Less Needy Because Of Funds From The Government • This was before the Spring 2005 effort to cut the CPB budget in Congress • There is confusion and a lack of information regarding the role of government funding at KQED • Some knew that government funding had been cut previously • Some didn’t know KQED received any government funds

10. There Appeared To Be Some Confusion About What The Level Of Government Funding Is And What It Should Be Even Before The Most Recent Efforts To Cut Appropriations “The government isn’t supporting it so we need to.” “I don’t have the impression the government is making a huge difference.” “Is it government supported? I didn’t even know. What percentage?” “If government influence would want to make you change the programming I would probably give you more money to keep it alive because if I thought they were trying to change what you were wanting to do.” “I would increase my spending if we could get the government out of funding public television and public radio completely. I think we are headed down a slippery slope and it’s really a slippery slope with government more and more…” “On the one hand, it looks attractive to get off that slippery slope. On the other hand, if the government is going to fund faith-based initiatives, why shouldn’t it also fund public radio and television?”

11. Nothing Appeared To Be More Important To Participants Than The Right Kind Of Thank You Letter • Must come quickly • Should have a personal hand written note • Should acknowledge the consistency of commitment as appropriate

12. Public Recognition Matters “I don’t care about the recognition for myself but I like to be recognized as an example for others.” “I know people have love/hate relationships with the donor list but I think in major giving, you want to be a part of it, you want to be part of the community and it helps attract other donors…” “I don’t care about being recognized in that way but I understand the argument that it may help get others to contribute.” “Another thing is that…some people…they’re doing it because of the recognition and that’s it so I don’t know if KQED gives the kind of recognition that they would like to have. It’s not as visible as some of the arts…For some people it’s very important and that’s what it’s all about. It’s seeing about where they are and how they measure up. I don’t think of KQED as offering that sort of ability to be recognized. That’s sort of fact, I don’t know if it’s good or bad.”

13. Participants Appear To Appreciate A Deeper Relationship • KQED’s events appear to be greatly appreciated and viewed as highly differentiated • Guest speakers • Size • “Others” at the event • Communication • Email and web communication appeared to receive significant attention and were highly valued (updates/newsletter, programming alerts, etc.) • Printed newsletter also received a good response • The response to Tune-In Cards was mixed, some were very positive and some were not at all interested • These participants would like to have a relationship beyond writing a check • They want to be known to staff • They appear interested in committing time for something worthwhile • They appeared to be very happy to be in a position where they were being asked for their opinion in a serious way • Said they’d like to see more focus groups • Suggested other ways their opinion could be solicited

14. And There Are Some Things They Don’t Appear To Want • Big gala events and dinners, except for very special occasions • Stuff (mugs, shirts, etc.) • Too many mailings • There is a sense that too much can be mailed and that too much can be mailed at one time • These focus groups would indicate that the welcome pack should be rethought.

15. Some Questions Raised • Is it obvious that KQED fits into an “area of focus” for a sufficient number of donors who think that way? • Do we need to do a better job of communicating how we spend our money and how efficient we are? • Does KQED’s Board of Directors pass the hurdle? • Can we do more to deal with the perception that KQED is San Francisco focused? • How do we provide more opportunity for involvement beyond development?