At the July 7 public meeting, many passionate and spirited speakers stated the value of KEXP, but provided little evidence that moving KEXP to the Fun Forest will uniquely serve to enhance the station’s programming and/or fulfill the Seattle Center RFP criteria. Curiously, in the 90 minutes I heard, there was not one single stakeholder from the Seattle music community willing to speak on behalf of KEXP’s proposal… no record store owners, club owners, concert promoters, record label staff, local musicians, etc. Perhaps those folks are against the idea, but don’t feel they can afford to be seen tipping any sacred cows?

Even a cursory analysis of the KEXP proposal (http://bit.ly/anNHf9) reveals a number of questionable programming assumptions and financial weaknesses which undermine its very premise:

On page 41, KEXP projects 700 annual in-studio performances accessible to the public, ranging in attendance from 20 to 100, with each person paying $14.75 for parking and concessions. That number of events is based on KEXP’s statement that in 2009 they produced 500 in-studio performances, presumably all at the Dexter studio? Do the math... with only 365 days in the year, 700 annual in-studio performances seems like quite a leap of logic.

Besides, anyone with knowledge of small touring bands would know that a high percentage of artists who would normally be willing to record a short in-studio radio session might not want to do the same in front of a public audience, even if KEXP lets them do their laundry first. That’s why bands do in-stores at great places like Easy Street and Sonic Boom - to make immediate sales, score free swag and to press the flesh with fans in a less schedule-sensitive environment.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say KEXP does provide all those performances and it does draw all those fans who spend all that money on parking and coffee… by KEXP’s estimate, that’s 34,000 visitors a year. That sounds more like a concert venue than a radio station. What are the practical implications with regard to city regulations, security, insurance, etc? And would KEXP effectively become a competitor to the city’s many small clubs and record stores? That’s a fragile ecosystem of which KEXP should be a vital component, not the dominant force.

Turning to page 42 of the proposal, we learn about the $248,000 worth of free Seattle Center advertising and on-air mentions that KEXP promises to deliver its listeners on behalf of the new landlord. That’s 3,650 times a year that supporting listeners will have to hear yet another “commercial” tagline.

Page 55 of KEXP’s proposal clearly states that a Capital Campaign is required because they don’t currently have the money to finance this project, with only $223,000 of net revenue expected in 2010. KEXP will need millions of dollars to pull this off, and you can bet that a healthy portion of the requests will be conducted over the air when they could instead be playing music. The project schedule on page 51 indicates the Campaign could last five months. One wonders how the 30% of KEXP’s donor base living outside of Seattle will feel about the lengthy beg-a-thon.

At best, this is a well-meaning idea that prematurely left the chute. At worst, it is another case of empire-building akin to the station’s ill-conceived expansion to NYC: http://bit.ly/9YPYnT

For over two decades, KCMU / KEXP has faced the admittedly difficult (though enviable) challenge of both growing its audience and increasing the quality / breadth of its core programming. The Seattle Center proposal does not adequately enhance those two areas relative to the financial risk involved. KEXP’s management, Board and Advisory Council would do well to reconsider this unnecessary expansion before foisting it on a loyal, hard-won audience and the local music community.