UNA LETANÍA CON LOS NOMBRES DE LOS MUULS-GT

Financial sustainability was also instrumental in the overall sustainability of the CRS under study. Financial sustainability revolved around the extent to which the stations could continually generate income in order to keep their routine operations, provide ongoing learning opportunities and remain the constant mouthpiece of the communities that they serve.

The theme financial sustainability had three main categories. These categories are financial management, income generation activities and financial viability.

Table 4.3: Financial sustainability

THEME CATEGORIES CODES

FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Financial management Technological acquisition Funding constraints Income generation activities

In-house finance activities

Financial viability Technology’s influence on finances

4.3.1 Financial management

The focus on financial management dealt with how stations used their finances in order to acquire technology meant for the continued maintenance of their broadcast service and how they managed to continue broadcasting despite their financial constraints. This category had two overriding codes, which are technological acquisition and funding constraints.

4.3.1.1 Technological acquisition

Community media tends to struggle with maintaining financial stability. Nevertheless, the received fragment of finances have to be reinvested to ensure the continuation of the

stations’ broadcast service. When queried about how much (in financial terms) the station allocated to the acquisition of technological equipment, the station managers replied:

There is an annual fee we pay for Genesis (programming software) for scheduling programmes, maintenance of the system and its operations; last year, we paid R44 000 (Boitumelo (station manager), 26/10/2016).

We spend about R35 000 a year on our software alone, our music scheduling software. Eighty % of our content is music, so we have to make sure that is spot on (Anthony (station manager), 29/08/2016).

The above-mentioned yearly expenditure for technology indicates that the stations in this study spent small amounts on technological acquisitions compared to other community stations. For instance, the study by Arora et al. (2015) found that out of 12 CRS they studied, 50% had a monthly expenditure of between R10 000-R22000, amounts far much higher than those expended by the stations under study. However, the expenditures indicated by the station managers in this study were for technological expenditure exclusively, unlike those in Arora et al.’s (2015) study.

Furthermore, “The ability to transmit and receive radio waves is a fascinating subject” (Laster, 2001:71) that requires funds to purchase equipment for this transmission. This suggests that community stations, as not-for-profit organisations, must re-invest any income received into the station. In fact, community media needs to prioritise radio equipment as literature states that “radio communications depend on many technologies for their reliable performance” (Laster, 2001:74).

4.3.1.2 Funding constraints

A further key consideration regarding financial sustainability was funding constraints. This related to the extent to which the community stations possessed and availed finances for the day-to-day running of their businesses. When probed about financial investments

committed to researching content for broadcasting, the research participants from both stations indicated a lack of such investment:

I cannot put a figure to it. We are using resources that are available to us immediately. You come in here you get good content and there is free internet although we (the station) pay for our internet monthly (Anele (programmes manager), 29/08/2016).

A presenter at Station B also attested that financial investment at their station was in the form of a computer and the internet that they used to research content for their programmes. The fact that both stations had computers and the internet available for use by employees is a great feat as some stations’ broadcasters have to figure out how they will generate content on their own. Arora et al.’s (2015) analysis of CRS in South Asia indicates that community stations spent their budgetary expenses on the repairing and maintenance of equipment. Nevertheless, there is still more equipment and resources that Stations A and B could have and these include voice recorders, transportation and telephone connection to make external calls.

In addition, the limited financial resource base of both community stations seem to mirror the financial struggles that some KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) community stations encounter (Mavhungu, 2009). One participant, in Mavhungu’s (2009) study, who once worked for these KZN radio stations, complained about quarrels between departments as the community media had one car. Hence, resource constraints is one of the reasons why Arora et al. (2015) recommends community stations to develop some arrangements with local service providers for the maintenance and upkeep of their broadcasting equipment and even sponsorship of some resources such as a car, recording equipment, and telephones, in exchange for airtime.

4.3.2 Income generation activities

This refers to the creative ways that the stations in this study tried to raise income using resources that are readily available to them. The component includes in-house finance activities.

4.3.2.1 In-house finance activities

According to the Perking Order Theory, it is ideal for an organisation to rely on internally generated financial resources because they are generally cheaper than external sources of funding such as debt financing (Myers & Majluf, 1984; Aabi, 2014). This theory suggests that organisations must follow a hierarchy of financing controlled by the need for external funds (Mpiti & Rambe, 2017). Therefore, it is important for stations to consider first the resources that they have at hand and find ways of generating an income using them before looking externally for financing. Stations A and B note that they make use of readily available in-house resources to generate an income. When quizzed about their sources of financing the managers of these stations highlighted that:

We sell some of the programmes and make a profit out of that. We also do promotions on-campus for companies. A company pays us, for instance, ABSA had promotions for about three-six hours and we charged them R6500 (Boitumelo (station manager), 26/10/2016).

We lease, on our social media platforms, to market an event. We collaborated with Topaz lounge as they sponsor shows (Anele (programmes manager), 30/08/2016).

The above-mentioned procedure involves an external company ‘purchasing’, ‘leasing’ or ‘sponsoring’ a specific programme or feature in order to gain advertising for the company and the stations making money as a result. CRS have a number of sellable resources at their disposal, yet they fail to make use of them. For instance, a health programme can be sponsored by a local pharmacy; a music programme can be sponsored by a local music store; a lifestyle programme by a local eatery; and a current affairs show by a local

newspaper. However, community stations need to exercise caution when using this form of income-generation to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the sponsors and the stations mandate regarding unbiased broadcasting services (Fraser & Estrada; 2011).

Both stations stated that they have a variety of services that they offer for profit making:

If a company wants to come and do promotions on campus, we charge them and help them set up. We also offer them sound services (Boitumelo (station manager), 26/10/2016).

We do have activations. Many companies approach us to help promote a new product or event (Anele (programmes manager), 29/08/2016).

Although these stations may receive external financial support from external funders or donors, they do not depend on such funding as they can generate their funding internally. They understand their marketing power and the reach they have, which they use to market themselves to advertisers. Their dependence on internally generated resources seems to mirror Fraser and Estrada’s (2011) criticism on dependence on external funding as it could compromise a station’s editorial independence.

4.3.3 Financial viability

This related to the harnessing of technology as an instrument for generating finances. With CBT being so prevalent in today’s society, community stations should utilise them as creative ways of making profits rather than as mediums of communication exclusively.

4.3.3.1 Technological influence on finances

The station manager’s response to the question about how technology has influenced the station’s finances was that:

Well, social media, very much so because that is a benefit I give when I am selling or advertising. We say, ‘listen, we have 16 000 likes on Facebook and what I will do is give you 100 ads on radio but I will also give you 10 Facebook posts or I will give you 20 Facebook posts. That is an extra income generating medium for us (Anthony (station manager), 29/08/2016).

Our having proper technologies and broadcasting services has made us much better than our common typical CRS. Some people say we sound like big radio stations. It has not helped us a lot but in some instances it did (Boitumelo (station manager), 26/10/2016).

Station A took advantage of CBT to go beyond their conventional operations and create additional income for the station. Station B needed to focus on how the technologies they acquire can enhance their overall sustainability. While most community stations depend on donations, grants, membership fees, sponsorship and advertising (Fraser & Estrada; 2011) as sources of income, social media can be a vital tool for generating income for community media. However, there was no sufficient evidence to demonstrate that substantial amounts of income were generated using social media.