Why pursue diversity — and which kind?

Marty wrote a series of thought-provoking posts a while back about diversity and classical radio. I was neck-deep in other business at the time and didn’t get a chance to chime in, but now I have some time to think things over and, I hope, advance the discussion. I’d like to start with a wide lens before zooming in.

First off: What kinds of diversity should we be talking about? “Diverse” in this context simply means “people unlike the majority now in evidence.” Stations can strive for diversity among several groups of people, all of which have come up in our discussions here so far. These groups could influence each other in a variety of complicated ways. They are:

• the composers of the music that stations play;
• the people who work at stations; and
• the people who listen to the stations.

And what kinds of diversity should stations pursue? We can slice and dice classical radio’s audience in a number of ways. But within the wider circle of public media, current discussions often focus on two attributes: age and ethnicity.

Identifying these groups and these attributes in turn raises distinct questions. Should classical stations:

• air more music by people other than dead white guys?
• diversify their staffs?
• pursue a more diverse audience?

Throughout public media, the question of audience is driving the discussion, with issues of staffing and programming in tow. Should classical stations be part of the discussion?

Classical stations could seek to diversify their audiences for many reasons. One is because they ought to — because diversity is an admirable ideal to be pursued. Another is because they stand to benefit financially.

I see strong arguments of both kinds.

First, the mission. Public broadcasting has historically made claims to try to serve all Americans. It’s a lofty goal. Certainly it has yet to be realized. Perhaps it never will be. But in theory, public media are better poised to pursue it than commercial media, being less inclined to be in thrall to corporate dollars. (It’s highly debatable whether the current funding model has in fact helped matters much.)

As for financial benefits to stations: Classical radio’s audience has flattened. Could stations attract more listeners within the demographic that they already serve well? Or have they tapped out that group?

If the well-served demo is in fact tapped out — and I’m by no means certain that it is — stations face a challenge in terms of fundraising from listeners. They can try either to squeeze more money from current donors while persuading more non-giving listeners to give, or they can increase the pool of potential donors.

There’s probably much to be done in getting current donors to give more, more often, and in tapping non-givers. But it can’t hurt to simultaneously grow the audience and be relevant to more people. Not only can growing audience boost listener donations, it can make stations more appealing outlets for underwriters.

Furthermore, stations that succeed at drawing a diverse audience to classical music become more valuable as community institutions. They unite people from various backgrounds around a cultural element they all share. Not only is this virtuous in and of itself, but it can make stations more attractive candidates for funding from public agencies and private foundations who seek to promote such goals.

I realize I probably haven’t broken much ground here. But I’m just warming up, as well as reintroducing the topic, and I’ll take it further in future posts. For now: What do you think? Is diversity worth pursuing, and if so, why?