Why it’s time to reconsider how ‘All Things Considered’ can expand its service for today’s listeners

Print More

I love All Things Considered. It always has been, and remains, my favorite public radio program. 

All Things Considered was the first public radio program I ever heard driving around in the back seat of my parents’ car. My first real job was as a board operator at WKSU in Kent, Ohio, during the local broadcasts of ATC. I had just turned 20 years old. 

I still believe in ATC’s staying power and its future. I believe it still has the capacity to grow its audience, public service and revenue. Despite conventional wisdom that broadcast’s best days are done, when I look at the audience data for All Things Considered, all I see is potential — unrealized potential. 

I believe that ATC, on radio and linear streaming, has tremendous opportunity to create more listening opportunities today. All it needs is a public radio system that gives the newsmagazine the direction, flexibility, trust and support to achieve its full potential for audience service.

This is more than an aspiration — ATC needs to thrive in 2022. The program is a foundational tentpole of public radio’s listening and economy. It needs to be treated like the mission-critical asset it is. 

My advocacy for reconsidering All Things Considered is not an effort to swim against the tide of digital transition. It has taken years — arguably decades — to get most public radio leaders to understand that the future of their public service is digital. Jumping forward to today, the opposite appears true. Leaders now seem so focused on building digital capacity and services that they’re giving very little thought to broadcast and linear services. That’s both a missed opportunity and dangerous.

While many consider “digital versus broadcast” an “either/or” scenario in which broadcast fades away while digital rises, the data doesn’t support that. It is instead a “both/and” scenario. Broadcast is declining. It’s actually been in decline since the mid-’80s. But public radio’s audiences, listening and revenue haven’t nose-dived like other media sectors experiencing digital disruption. 

Once again, as has happened numerous times in past decades, public radio has bucked the trends seen in commercial broadcasting. Broadcast will remain a critical and central part of public radio’s service for at least another decade, and there is still ample room to grow and expand both audience and revenue in that interim. I’d argue this point with anyone — and I’d win.

Let’s swing back to the implications for All Things Considered. Why focus on ATC and not other programs? Its format and clock have remained basically the same for a generation. Meanwhile, there’s been considerable swirl and change in media consumption and audio competition. The show has instituted changes during that time by adding hosts, making the program bicoastal, producing more live content and fresh hours, and working to be more on top of the news. 

Have all those changes objectively worked? Were they enough to allow ATC to meet the changed times? 

To be even more existential about it, what does it mean to be an afternoon radio newsmagazine in 2022? Who answers that question, and what information are they using in making those choices? What are the format, length, editorial choices and trade-offs that come from their answers? How do they evaluate those decisions? 

Why isn’t a conversation about these issues happening today, with the new competitive emergence of The Daily as well as Today, Explained and 2.8 million other podcasts vying for listener attention? 

The lack of focus on these questions is undermining public radio’s public service — and with it the basic engines of its economy and business models.

One story versus all things

I started my journey of asking these questions shortly after I overheard a friend, a veteran staffer of weekday All Things Considered, defend the program in a comparison to The Daily from the New York Times.

“Of course The Daily can produce the kind of episodes they do,” they said. “The Daily only has 20 minutes to fill. ATC has two hours.”

I found this statement really thought-provoking, as well as a bit puzzling.

The comparison makes sense on the surface. Both shows have roughly the same staff size. Both produce programs every weekday. Both draw from a large newsroom for many of their contributors and talent. That’s where the similarities end. 

The Daily is having a great run, both as a podcast and a radio program. It is almost indulgently produced: a single story, meticulously constructed and sound-rich, often with use of location sound and music as a scoring element. To almost any trained ear, you can tell a lot of attention to detail and fussiness goes into every minute of every episode. It’s impressive.

It’s almost ironic that The Daily’s production style and attention to detail in audio news reporting was pioneered by All Things Considered. Yet over the decades since ATC expanded to two hours, the pressure (both internally and from the system) has been to make stories shorter and include more of them over the course of a program. 

As a result, All Things Considered lives its name; it considers all things. It covers a broad range of subjects, from dozens of beats, from around the world. While The Daily examines only one story, All Things Considered usually covers more than a dozen — plus newscasts, plus live updates for the later feeds. ATC doesn’t often utilize The Daily’s style of production because, frankly, how could it have time to? The way it is produced often favors breadth over depth. Given all the news that it is trying to tackle on any given day, there aren’t time or resources to produce many things that sound like The Daily, let alone have the space within the program to go that deep.

I’m curious if that’s still the right choice in 2022.

It is important … to consider whether all the resources and talent that go into producing ATC locally and nationally meet the needs and interests of today’s listeners or, to be more precise, a diverse audience with contemporary tastes and habits for media consumption.

Before we go further, I want to say something emphatically. All Things Considered is an amazing program, created by incredibly talented hosts, journalists and audio makers. The show team consistently amazes us with their agility and finesse at producing a timely, fresh and surprisingly live program across the country. It has been, is now and will continue to be the gold standard for audio newsmagazines. Period. 

If you’ve ever had the privilege of watching the staff produce the show, you’d be in awe of their efforts. It takes an incredible amount of talent, skill, trust and coordination. Staffers work hard to fulfill the program’s mission, and they’re breathtakingly masterful at manipulating ATC’s format and length to bring forward a fresh, continuously updated program that’s on top of the day’s news. They deserve a lot of praise for their ninja-like skills. 

My questions aren’t about how well they do what they do everyday. My questions center on whether it is better to manipulate a dated format and structure for the program — or to put that energy into reimagining the program for a new era. I believe that a refreshed set of formatic marching orders from news management and stations to ATC’s talented staff might unlock more listening, public service and revenues that can support expanded public service. 

I think it is important for the system to consider whether all the resources and talent that go into producing ATC locally and nationally meet the needs and interests of today’s listeners or, to be more precise, a diverse audience with contemporary tastes and habits for media consumption. 

This gets at a far more basic question: Why is All Things Considered two hours long? Given that most listeners don’t hear even a quarter of the program, why stick with that length and the resulting editorial and aesthetic restrictions it creates? Why not one (continuously updated) hour? Why not six live hours? 

What makes sense today? 

Search for solid answers 

Format and clock are articulations of programming strategy designed to reach a desired audience. While there’s now an ongoing and overdue conversation about expanding public radio’s understanding of its audience, how have those conversations been applied to changing the strategy, i.e., the format and clock of the program?

Given the ways that contemporary audiences are consuming news, it’s time to evaluate what listeners want in an afternoon newsmagazine and whether current practices are on track. Are we missing opportunities by sticking to the way things are?

I’ve discussed these questions with a number of station leaders, and all agreed with the urgent need to address these questions. They weren’t even sure who to talk to about them or who should be speaking on behalf of the system.

The truth is, I haven’t found anyone with a solid answer to any of my questions.

I made several requests to talk with someone from NPR on the record about their strategic thinking about All Things Considered. They declined to make anyone available. Instead, NPR provided a statement that concluded: “While the number of minutes in the broadcast show may not have changed in some time, ATC is constantly adapting to better serve the audience and be timely and relevant.”

If that’s true, with listening occasions and time spent listening to the program flat or down, what are the results from all that “adapting”? How do the show’s producers or NPR stations evaluate and learn from their decisions and investments? Did they make a measurable difference? It’s hard to have a meaningful conversation about seizing opportunities without a way to honestly evaluate and pay attention to what is and isn’t working.

I’m not trying to fault NPR or news management; I believe they are flying as blind on these questions as the people who did talk to me. NPR has come out of a pandemic and delivered some of the most impactful years of news coverage we’ve ever seen. But now is the time to look at the future and imagine what’s possible for a new era.

The need for distinction and agility

Every program, regardless of when it airs, should regularly ask itself two questions:

  • How do we remain distinct?
  • How do we meet the listeners where they are?

These are both subjective questions, meaning the answers will constantly change. However, the results should be objectively measured.

Distinction is in flux, and probably always will be. External competitive forces — from radio, podcasts, newspapers, television, digital news sites and so on — are constantly emerging and changing. As the competitive mix changes, so should public radio and its programs.

When All Things Considered first launched, its start time was seen as a competitive advantage. Five o’clock (later moved up to 4 p.m. based on station guidance and competitive pressures) meant it could deliver the day’s news before the television networks’ evening newscasts. Listeners tuned in to catch up on everything important that had happened in the world that day. 

That was a great operating construct at the time. Now almost every component of that paradigm has changed. When ATC expanded from 90 minutes to two hours in 1995, the goal was to capture more and longer listening occasions from the audience. But that isn’t what happened. In fact, the opposite happened.

Over the past 20 years, during an era of disruption and general decline across most FM broadcasting, All Things Considered’s audience has actually grown larger. But during the past 12 years of PPM measurement, the average quarter-hour and time spent listening to ATC have essentially been flat to slightly down. More people are listening, but unfortunately they’re not listening more, nor are they listening more often. Yet buried in that stubborn trend is an opportunity.

Public radio’s ecosystem is built around value. When more audiences listen, and listen more, more revenue comes into the system. The ties between listening and listener support, as well as between listening and underwriting, are proven. In a values-based ecosystem, “doing more things” isn’t as important as “doing things with more distinction.”

Whatever actions you take to address questions about ATC’s distinction and agility, make sure you’re doing it in ways that are objective and measurable.

Audiences express value by spending more of their time listening. That value isn’t based on their attitudes or perceptions of quality. They don’t listen because there is a lot of something; they listen because the programming they hear adds real value to their lives — and distinctly more value than the #2, #3 or #4 options that compete for their listening time.

Whenever I speak to public radio staffers about how they can better meet listeners where they are, the answers are, almost universally, via digital, not broadcast or linear formats. I couldn’t be a bigger advocate for expanding digital public service, but there are more than 27 million public radio news listeners today who cannot be taken for granted. 

The people who answer “digital-only” tend to ignore the fact that, currently, all these digital offerings depend on NPR’s core newsmagazines and its news division to be healthy and vibrant. There is no Consider This without All Things Considered. That may not always be the case, but it is today. Even though there are significant business-model issues around FM broadcast, it is still providing a significant amount of public service. And that translates into the support NPR and stations need to propel any version of the future.

This would be upsetting if there wasn’t ample evidence, in your audience data, that there is opportunity to drive more listening by adjusting the program to match what listeners need in 2022. Whatever actions you take to address questions about ATC’s distinction and agility, make sure you’re doing it in ways that are objective and measurable. This has been missing from changes that have been made over the past several years (such as adding hosts and live hours, or making the program bicoastal). Tremendous amounts of resources and time have been invested in ATC by NPR and stations without identifying clear ways to measure their impact or analyze the outcomes of those decisions. To my knowledge there is no data that shows these investments have resulted in increased listening — and we can’t settle for that.

What were the objectives for these changes? Going forward, it’s important to define the objective for any change; otherwise, it could end up being an investment of energy and resources just to stay in the same place. The only way to learn from any change is to agree on how to evaluate whether it’s been effective. That creates space for conversation and objective analysis that can inform decisions about what changes need to be made next.

Longer ≠ better

When NPR expanded All Things Considered to two hours in 1995, it was a defensive move. Marketplace was rooting itself in station schedules, and The World was launching as a co-production among Public Radio International, GBH in Boston and the BBC. Both programs were founded to address perceived soft spots in NPR programming. Both aimed at the afternoon drive hours that stations traditionally filled with All Things Considered

I became a station programmer shortly after The World launched and didn’t add it to my station’s schedule. I didn’t want a new show; I wanted All Things Considered to change and make the new show unnecessary. 

Station programmers who added The Daily thinking it might attract new listeners are probably disappointed. The show seems to do a great job of attracting listeners who are already core to the station yet value The Daily’s different approach.

Now, in the age of podcasting, that opportunity and encroachment from competitors is happening again with distribution of The Daily and now Vox’s Today, Explained to public radio stations. Both aim for afternoon drive time and attempt to augment what is currently available during that daypart. They both take the exact opposite approach from the afternoon flagship, rejecting the need to cover everything and instead going deep on one story. 

How have listeners reacted to The Daily’s presence on stations’ air and its entirely opposite approach to public radio’s afternoon drive-time flagship? According to AudiGraphics Power Perspectives, apparently very well, especially when the show airs adjacent to All Things Considered. That said, station programmers who added The Daily thinking it might attract new listeners are probably disappointed. The show seems to do a great job of attracting listeners who are already core to the station yet value The Daily’s different approach.

Most of the conversation within the system about The Daily’s presence on public radio has focused on competitive concerns: Stations wonder out loud if it is “smart” to give airtime to a radio adaptation of a podcast when podcasting is perceived as a competitive threat. Few people are talking about what can be learned from The Daily and how those lessons can be applied to production of public radio’s programs and local news offerings. If there are perceived soft spots in public radio’s signature newsmagazine, why not focus on fixing those? 

Why can’t All Things Considered be all the things we see in other programs?

The truth is, it can be. And it can be even more. But NPR and its member stations have to shed their resistance to change and agree to evaluate whether the paradigm that ATC’s show team continues to work under still works for today’s listeners. 

As stations produce more local content, the acrobatics required to fit their reporting into ATC and make it feel like anything more than a strap-on experience is already getting harder. There is a clear wrestling match going on between NPR’s vision for the show, stations’ individual and collective visions for the show, and what listeners need. 

And yet none of these groups seem to be talking to each other.

How things change

So what can you, an individual working somewhere in the public radio station system, do? Well, first I would stop assuming that the networks or national program producers are going to solve this problem for you. You can’t expect NPR or any other program producer to respond to 280 opinions about their programs when those opinions are not clearly or collectively expressed or correlated. As I’ve pointed out in the past, when public radio stations unite around a listener-focused idea to improve public service, things change. 

If you think that All Things Considered lacks something that you find in another program or podcast to fill, speak up. If you look at your AudiGraphics or Nielsen ratings and see things that need to change, advocate for that specific change. If you want a cleaner, more intentional way to integrate local material alongside the stellar national and international coverage, say so. Start a conversation that will lead to the change you need to succeed.

Ask questions like: How can the public radio system make change? In times of disruption, how can the system be agile enough to make adjustments in response? Faced with declining use of a program, even by a larger audience, how can the system allow flagship programs to experiment, find new ways to serve and evolve? How do you empower creative program staffers to innovate in ways that benefit everyone?

Ironically, part of the answer may lie in letting All Things Considered be free from the mantle of considering all things. Let the program take a different form, perhaps focusing deeper on fewer things. Let it explore and answer questions like, What makes ATC distinctive in 2022? What will draw listeners to the program and draw them back? What will draw new people? What will make people regret missing any day’s program? How can we make sure more people hear our best stuff? How do we make it all the best stuff?

Continuing to ignore this will prevent ATC from reaching its potential to serve more listeners more often and deepen the importance of public radio in American life. Fixing it requires stations to come forward with a clear-eyed expression of what’s going on with the audience — and then trusting the program to answer the moment.

Good luck. I’ll be listening.

Eric Nuzum ([email protected]) is the co-founder of Magnificent Noise, a podcast production and consulting company. He also provides strategic advice to public radio programs and stations, and writes about radio and digital audio in his newsletter The Audio Insurgent. His latest book, Make Noise: A Creator’s Guide to Podcasting and Great Audio Storytelling, was published in December 2020.

7 thoughts on “Why it’s time to reconsider how ‘All Things Considered’ can expand its service for today’s listeners

  1. The number one thing that drives me crazy about All Things Considered? Driving around Boston, Providence, Hartford, and New York City…and seeing massive road traffic every weekday beginning by 3pm. Yet there’s no ATC until 4pm.

    Talk about a wasted opportunity.

    I wouldn’t even care if ATC was still two hours, just starting at 3pm ET instead of 4pm. That’d be enough to capture a hell of a lot more listeners.

  2. Eric, you raise some important insights, but I personally enjoy the format of ATC that covers a variety of interesting topics instead of going deep on one story (FWIW, I’m a female listener in my late 20s). As you note, there are plenty of other shows that do that. What I’ve long appreciated about public radio is the amount of information I can efficiently receive in a relatively short amount of time. With that said, if ATC continues to occupy a two hour slot, I’d be intrigued by the incorporation of one “long form” story at the end that might have a 20-30 min footprint.

  3. Devin, ATC did used to do long-form stories regularly — until (I think) the early ’90s. (I’ve listened to the show almost since it launched, though not every day.)

    They dropped them because by far the most common situation in which people listened (and still listen) to ATC is on the commute home from work. When people get where they’re going, they’re going to get out of their vehicles and go there., and listeners weren’t going to sit in the car or wherever for ten minutes to get to the end of a long-form story but also didn’t like leaving in the middle of something.

    So ATC mostly dropped long-form stories. (On weekdays, anyway — Weekend ATC is a different thing.)

    I still think that most listeners to an afternoon audio news program are going to be listening on their commutes, and, as you suggest, they’re probably going to want a survey of the news. If they want one or two long-form pieces, they’ll listen to a different program entirely, not ATC.

  4. As someone who’s been listening to NPR since 2004 on WMUK I wish ATC would bring back commentary like the late Daniel schoor did. And stop running so many encore stories when there’s enough news not to waste precious minutes on old news from months ago

    • Good point, Mike, about the excellent commentators like Schorr, or the late Baxter Black, or the conversations with the late Red Barber that Bob Edwards used to have on Morning Edition — similar to Howard Bryant with Scott Simon now on Saturday mornings. Or even Story Corps stories (again in the morning). Distinctive and distinguished voices or features, regularly appearing that we looked forward to hearing, became must-listen magnets for listener tune-in.
      Maybe Eric’s numbers would prove me wrong, but I think audiences look for wisdom and friendship from their radio, as well as the excellently reported stories from the ATC staff.

  5. Eric, your essay is both very important and very-well articulated. Among the significant ideas I draw from it are these:
    1. Yes, the range of subject matter IS too broad for a single show and stretches the staff beyond its capacity. We used to joke about “a very things … WELL CONSIDED … would be preferable!
    2. The show has become a slave to a narrow public-affairsy view of the world, by and large ignoring the news and views of the ars and humanities — seeing those are “production bridges” between hard news content.
    3. The decision to end commentaries emasculated the rich truly national sound and views of the program. We NEED to hear America in this program and not merely public policy wonks.
    4. Finally, a truly revolutionary concept. Several programs including Marketplace, The World, The Daily, Today, and others — have not just found loyal audiences of their own. They have developed unique approaches and voices that compliment NPR’s coverage and sound. These programs should not be viewed as the competition. Rather, their content and voice should be included in ATC, enriching the coverage and found of the foremost public radio banner. Make ATC more inclusive, less combative with its broadcast/digital colleagues.

  6. These comments are long. Read them if you like. There is so much wrong with ATC that I wrote at length.

    I am a long time listener to NPR, I don’t work in the field.

    I have been listening to ATC since the early seventies. As a blind person living at a time before the Internet and before long form television news, I was on the lookout at the time for good radio news.

    ATC. used to live up to its name far more. It doesn’t at all now. It was rightly a program that concentrated on the news but it had commentaries, as another listener discussed and it had dramatic satires.

    Now, nothing sets ATC apart from many other news programs, not on NPR. I can listen to CBS streaming television news, for example, whenever I want. I can get long form coverage from the PBS News hour.

    In the old days, NPR would cover things that weren’t covered elsewhere such as the annual meeting of the AAAS, a scientific association.

    Almost no classical record reviews, almost no jazz, now, the small number of reviews are popular music. there’s a whole world of music out there but ATC, evidently believing that the way to keep listeners is not to broaden their horizons, blatantly panders to what it thinks its listeners want to hear. How insulting.

    there used to be an actual book review critic. No more. Its almost all news, almost all the time.

    Since the program does nothing distinctive anymore, why should I care about it?

    I get far more interesting opinions on the news in The New York times opinion section and in reading opinion from a variety of sources.

    And NPR has adopted a chatty faux interview style for story after story when a well written report would serve much better. An interview of a reporter concerning a story, mixed with reports would be a nice change of pace but the current mania for mock interviews wastes a lot of valuable time and is informal to the extent that it presents an unserious image. I’m really tired of the constant heys and his and thanking reporters for appearing. Does The Times thank every reporter for their reporting under the byline? And the amount of time wasted considering the time limitations the schedule imposes is journalistic malfeasance.

    Here are the questions from a recent segment.

    SUMMERS: Let’s discuss this news with NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson and congressional correspondent Deirdre Walsh. Hello to both of you.
    SUMMERS: OK. So let’s start by walking through what happened today. The panel discussed its findings, much of which we had already heard. And Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland ultimately named the referrals. Here’s part of what he said.
    JAMIE RASKIN: Ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass.
    SUMMERS: So, Carrie, what were the charges outlined against former President Trump today?

    SUMMERS: Let’s unpack this a little bit. Carrie, what stands out to you about that?

    SUMMERS: What about for you, Deirdre? I know we’ve been wondering about these criminal referrals for some time now.

    SUMMERS: So, Carrie, to you on the investigative side, what happens next now?

    SUMMERS: And we also learned about some referrals to the House Ethics Committee against a number of lawmakers. Deirdre, what can you tell us about that?
    SUMMERS: So, Carrie, in addition to the four referred charges that you laid out earlier in our conversation, the panel raised the idea of seditious conspiracy in its report. What did it say?
    SUMMERS: So, Deirdre, how have Republicans responded?SUMMERS: And, Deirdre, before I let you go, you were there for the hearing. This is a hearing from a panel that’s almost done, that’s set to expire next Congress. Four of the committee members are not returning next Congress. What was it like today?

    SUMMERS: NPR’s Deirdre Walsh and Carrie Johnson. Thanks to both of you.
    JOHNSON: Thank you.
    WALSH: Thank you.

    I can imagine a host saying, there was a nuclear bomb dropped today on , pick your country. Here to talk about this is correspondend X. Hey, X.
    X: Hey.

    No matter how serious the news, we hear constant hey’s and hi’s throughout the program. This is not a serious journalistic tone. Its NPR’s equivalent of happy talk.

    Can you imagine Susan Stamberg or Robert Siegel engaging in this nonsense and these faux interviews? I don’t think its a coincidence that these changes were made after the retirement of the former generation of anchors. They wouldn’t have stood for such nonsense.

    All Things Considered, no longer even remotely living up to its name, should change its name. Perhaps the afternoon news show might be more appropriate. Its not original, its not falsely advertising the program, and it won’t be a remnant and a daily reminder of a fine past, now gone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *