Introducing Britain’s Greenest Town

Now, I’m already inclined to like these stories because I think local food will remain part of a larger localism trend over the next 10 to 20 years as we pass peak oil and go deeper into global warming’s effects.

But there’s a quote in there that caught my eye (boldface my own):

Incredible Edible was originally funded out of the participants’ own pockets. “We were very clear that we didn’t want to look at what grants were available and mould our projects to suit them,” said Mr Green. “We felt that what would work was to start with the town and what it needed. We’d look for money later on.” What the project leaders found was that a lot could be achieved with small amounts of cash. And awards and grants have followed…

This was something I saw in public media (and still see) that drove me nuts: companies taking grant money because it was available and the projects sounded mildly interesting, not because they organically developed a project in response to local needs.

We did it in Alaska when the stations took money to create a replication of the “Portal Wisconsin” project from several years back. No one really wanted to do the project — hell, the company didn’t even believe in the web as a viable platform to begin with — but there was $10,000 in cash sitting there, waiting to be taken. We ended up not doing the project and returning the money (thankfully). But that wasn’t the only time funny funding came along.

I worry about other projects (one in particular comes to mind right now) that drives public media firms to do work they shouldn’t really be doing.

Heres a concept:

• find out what the community wants or needs; do a “listening project” like IdeaStream did a few years back
• develop a project or service that would fit the community’s needs
• if you really need cash to get started, then start smaller so you need less cash and can fund it out of pocket
• get some early successes, then take your story on the road to raise more money if needed

Social media works this way, too. First, you listen. Then you talk. Then you get together to do something new as a team. Later you raise money.

I know there’s an additional desire to ingratiate one’s public media company with the CPB or with the Knight Foundation, so people sign up for projects that don’t quite fit but are “close enough.” And I know these projects are a time-honored tradition in the public media system — it’s just what everyone does.

But maybe that’s one of our problems. We’re not working for our communities, we’re working for someone else, somewhere else.

Let’s do our own work. And let’s start by listening.

As we prepare for an overhaul in Anchorage, I find myself thinking more and more about community, “tribes,” interactivity and relationships.

If you’re at a local station, especially in a mid-size to smaller market, this is defintely worth a quick scan.

Recently in Online Journalism Review, Robert Niles wrote a great link-bait article — It’s time for the newspaper industry to die — in which he explains why newspapers need to dump the word “newspaper” from their internal lexicon and psychology. He offers several reasons for this.

But the best reason centers on that favorite word of mine: Community. And the reason applies to public media, too.

Niles recognizes a fundamental shift in newspapers over the last decade: they’ve cut back on real community service while maximizing shareholder profits.

Great content and great tools are not enough to build the large, habitual audience that content publishers will need to maximize their opportunities to make money online, through advertising and sales. Even more than those two things, a website needs great engagement with its readers. And engagement with the public is something that’s been budgeted out of too many newsrooms over the past generation.

It’s time to bring that back. It’s time to do that online. And if a beloved label needs to be sacrificed to inspire the innovation that will enable this effort, so be it. It’s time for the “newspaper” industry to die. Because we all need the news industry to survive.

I would submit the term “public broadcasting” can take the same route to oblivion. One-way broadcasting can no longer be the point, even if that’s the most comfortable thing to do. Community engagement, public service, gathering, convening, whatever — that’s got to be the goal. Broadcasting is a tool, a means to an end of public service.

What we want from a “newspaper” isn’t fish wrapping or bird cage lining, it’s news, information, connection to events. What we want from broadcasting is pretty similar. But let’s not confuse the delivery system with the purpose. And let’s not believe for a moment that retransmitting someone else’s non-local, marginally-relevant content is something worth preserving in a world of on-demand access to all content anywhere.

–

Since entering the public media world professionally almost four years ago, I’ve always thought the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was ripe for transformation (and not because of that Bush administration weasel Kenneth Tomlinson). Why? Because they need a name change and a mission reevaluation. It’s too bad the purpose of the CPB — funding and fostering public Broadcasting — has its instructions enshrined in law.  It’s making it difficult, if not impossible, to fund new projects. Consider this Q&A between IMA’s Mark Fuerst and CPB’s current president, Pat Harrison, at the recent IMA 2008 conference in Los Angeles (audio clip, about 1 minute):

• Download the above audio clip
• Download Harrison’s complete comments at IMA 2008 here (MP3, 14MB)

Harrison gets it. Sure, she’s referring to reauthorization for CPB in Congress, but that’s just cover for avoiding talk about shifting funding out of pure broadcasting and into community engagement. (In fairness, the CPB has spent millions over the past several years on new media research and projects, but as I’ve noted before, we haven’t really seen any transformations.)

This is really too bad. Because while newspapers are stuck with an old term and a psychology that’s hard to shake, we have those challenges plus actual laws that govern a significant portion of our funding. To change the laws or create new ones to foster and fund community building and interaction via all available media may be politically impossible.

But even in 1983, in the peak of this tremendous success, Apple was reinventing the personal computer. They were secretly inventing the Macintosh, which was introduced a year after I got that Apple IIe in January 1984 (with the famous Superbowl ad).

Developing the Mac was a massively expensive proposition. New chips, new software, new case designs, a mouse, even a brand new 3.5″ floppy drive developed by Sony but still considered cutting-edge and risky. Everything called for clean slate development in order to get it all just right.

So what funded this engineering miracle? The successful and highly profitable Apple II series. And guess what — the Mac wasn’t profitable at launch. That first year was deadly. Apple introduced a $2,500 computer ($5,100 in 2007 dollars) that had two software programs: MacPaint and MacWrite, and it wasn’t compatible with the growing library of Apple II software titles.

Check out this brief video (43 seconds) of Guy Kawasaki recounting how the Mac team was funded by the Apple II team, and the considerable tension this created:

I often think of the Apple II / Macintosh example when conversations in public media circles turn to the question of how will we pay for this new media stuff that doesn’t make any money and takes money out of the profitable broadcasting business. Newspapers and the music industry are also great analogies for public broadcasting.

It takes real leadership, real courage to deliberately take cash from a profitable and successful unit and sink it into the next big thing, even if it takes years for it to pay off. Plus, you have to deal with the political pressures to stop funding this financial black hole from the “reasonable” business people all around you (on the board, on the management team, in the community, on the staff). As I look at my own public media business today, we’ve not even begun to seriously tackle the challenges of the new media world — chiefly because “Apple II” folks are in charge. I often wonder whether we should give up trying to reform the core of the company (a la Ideastream) and simply fund an external unit that can focus on the new media challenge without interference from the traditional “cash cow” part of our business.

The one example of “put it outside the core” I know of in the public media world can be found at Chicago Public Radio. Their Vocalo project (as described by Robert Paterson), is an external unit in every sense of the word. They have separate facilities, a new name unaffiliated with the old name, a separate budget, different leadership, different content and business models, etc. It’s a fascinating approach, and it mimics the Apple experience.

But I’m wondering… is anyone else in public media doing this? Who else, if anyone, is creating distinct subsidiaries for innovation? Is anyone else willing to spend their Apple II money on their Macintosh project?

My shocking and insane recommendation:

• PBS should “implode” and reorganize itself on a variation of the C-SPAN model — not the programming, but the distribution system. (C-SPAN sells its service directly to distribution providers like cable and satellite companies. Why can’t PBS do this? Answer: They could.)
• This new approach would create between 3-10 “channels” of content that are sold directly to cable, satellite and IPTV providers nationwide; each channel would be themed around a coherent content set (a la Discovery’s various channels).
• PBS then additionally monetizes all those channels (on top of the distribution revenue) with a more organized “advertising lite” model that they’re already pursuing, but pursuing in a badly-organized way. New approach:
  • put the ads into multiple breaks during the hour, not in huge viewer-irritating blocks at the top of the hour
  • but… run ads less than any commercial station
  • and stick to the standards already in place for allowed/disallowed message types
  • sell the ads nationally; ad runs are guaranteed because there are no local stations to mess with the carriage levels or patterns
  • whether or not you let producers sell embedded ads could be figured out
• PBS should then “explode” itself by turning over all its content to the existing local public TV stations — for free (or for a nominal administrative fee); the shows would carry the aforementioned embedded ads, even when played out on localized schedules.
• PBS should further explode itself (after an adjustment period) by providing the content to other nonprofits under the same fee structure as the legacy member stations; schools, new public media players, and so on could get access to the content and use it for public good in their areas.

Why?

• Local stations in small- to mid-size markets today are unable to effectively produce community-engaging relevant content because so much of their budgets go to buy programming from PBS and others (who in turn buy programming from producers); by releasing these smaller stations from the financial burden, they can then spend that money to engage with their public online, in person and over the air in ways that are economically unfeasible today — but are critical to any media company’s survival going forward.
• The big producing stations will be either largely unaffected or helped — they can still sell programming to PBS for distribution, and with the increased distribution capacity (more channels), and more stable income stream, they just might be able to sell more.
• PBS could finally break up its programming into channels; the programming model today (“everybody into the pool!” ) doesn’t work for cable users trained to expect thematic channels; we would move further into the PBS Kids and Sprout models and compete with the Discoveries of the world on their own turf.
• The PBS member station model is wildly overbuilt — we do the same things all over the country again and again and again, each in our own town. It’s a waste of taxpayer and donor dollars. This gives the public a unified service that’s more efficient and will be capable of producing more content, both locally and nationally.
• If local stations really do provide a value-add service that’s unique to their community, they can still do so under this model. Indeed, once freed from the heavy PBS licensing fees, they’ll be in the best position in 10 years or more to uniquely serve their local communities.
• The only local stations left after all this would be those that are truly engaged in their communities and produce products/services that meet real needs. And that’s the way it should be.

Scary stuff, no? But some variation of this plan may be the only solution for the future. One participant at dinner suggested PBS would never do anything to disintermediate member stations. That’s sweet, but it may not be PBS’s choice in the end. Economics may force a decision something like the above. Indeed, it might even be the best solution ahead of a crisis (but please, share your thoughts below!).

Why might PBS be forced into this model anyway? Keep in mind the PBS universe is held together by several thin threads. Tugging at any one of them could lead to a system-wide financial implosion. For example…

Consider the DTV transition next year and the weakening economy right now. Combine those factors with stations that are already weak (Peoria, anyone?) and you could see a die-off of perhaps 10% or 20% of the stations by 2011 (2 years after the DTV changeover). If that happens, then either there’s a PBS pull-back in content that further erodes the service profile (leading to an erosion of financial support), or rates go up substantially for the remaining station cohort, thus continuing the carnage for those that survived the first culling.

But never mind the disaster scenario — think of the possibilities and opportunities! If we could model and implement this correctly…

• local stations see fees drop to zero or near zero
• local stations go back to doing local production and engagement
• local stations can now focus on producing a service that’s unique to their geography — something that PBS cannot do as a national entity
• PBS gets control of its service at the national level for the first time
• PBS gets financial stability because it controls its own income and expense streams directly
• cable/satellite providers get a unified service that’s easier to manage (from a single source) and makes more sense for their customers (due to the channelization)
• kids get great PBS programming for them in solid 24×7 services
• adults get great PBS programming 24×7, too — no more waiting for the kids shows to go off-air
• more programming enters the network from new local production (with national appeal), community-generated and user-generated content and so on
• the station vs. network fights and suspicions end (!) — each player now has a clear mandate and responsibility in the public media universe
• local distribution channels expand to new players — even those without FCC licenses
• CPB money, when provided, truly goes to provide local service — something every Congressman can get behind because their constituents are now better served

Okay, that’s the idea. You can see why it gets people’s ire up. Comments are open!

By the way, I realize if PBS sells direct to cable/satellite services that breaks the free over-the-air broadcast model to some degree. But… 1) I don’t think Congress is going to care that much — most of their (voting and rich) constituents will not fight the change, especially since the 2009 DTV transition will move more people to cable than ever before, and 2) if the PBS cost to local stations drops to zero, those stations are less likely to go out of business anyway.

I didn’t comment on the validity of the Times articles ideas themselves — we can debate that separately (and perhaps I will). But I did try to provide a reality check on those folks saying we should de-fund PBS because it would be fine on its own.

It continues to surprise me how few people understand how public broadcasting is funded. To be fair, the funding systems are a nasty mess of spaghetti, so I can understand the confusion. But it’s not really that hard once you’ve been through it once or twice.

Perhaps I need to write a post that diagrams and explains how this works. A diagram, however messy, might help. But for now, here are the salient points on how funding works in the U.S. public broadcasting world:

• The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is an independent corporation setup by Congress to take in funding for public broadcasting services. They exist to foster pubcasting nationwide, in the “public interest.”
• The CPB is “forward funded” by 2 years from the present, mostly to help insulate the CPB from intra-year funding threats over political issues.
• The CPB has a politically-appointed (by the President) Board that oversees the company, but does not participate in day-to-day operations.
• The CPB gives out money to public radio and TV stations on an annual basis, generally in the fall and the spring, to serve their local constituencies. These are called Community Service Grants (CSGs).
• Local stations accept the CSGs, and then combine them with money raised from sponsorship (advertising lite) and membership (pledges, transactional sales) and anything else they can do to raise money. The size of their CSGs from the CPB are partially determined by their ability to raise money locally — the more you raise, the more CSG you’ll usually get.
• The local stations then build and buy programming to put on the air. To build programming they have paid staff and volunteers in varying ratios. When buying programming, they turn to national networks or independent producers. NPR and PBS are the two obvious examples, but there are actually many more.
• Separately, Congress funds other programs to support the technical infrastructure needed by local pubcasting stations (transmission gear). These might be earmarks in some cases, but mostly they are additional funds given either to the CPB or to other entities for distribution to local stations. These are one-time deals, but they are frequently repeated, depending upon needs. DTV conversion is an example of separate funding that helped most of the public TV stations make the leap.
• PBS and NPR may get small grants from the CPB for small projects or for general services, but in the grand scheme of things, the funding streams from the CPB are minor. They could live without these direct funds.
• Using the programming as an attractor, local stations then gather donations and sell sponsorships around the programming they broadcast.
• PBS, NPR and other programming providers mostly make money from the “dues” paid by member stations. Dues are mostly calculated based on the size of the target market served by the station.
• PBS turns around and spends their income on two main things: 1) their own technical infrastructure and the costs of distributing programming to member stations, and 2) buying the programming they run, from NOVA to Sesame Street to the News Hour and so on. Yes — PBS buys that programming, they don’t produce it. It’s typically produced by the largest stations in the network (e.g. WGBH, WNET, KQED, etc.), but also independent producers.
• And round and round we go.

Quite a mess, huh?

This is why the notion of defunding the CPB would have a lot of unpredictable impacts, allocated unevenly across the system (such as it is). The smallest stations would go out of business almost overnight. The largest non-producing stations would likely be fine after a few cuts here and there. Stations in between would suffer a mixed bag of impacts. The impacts to PBS and NPR are unclear because their customer base would shrink by some significant — but unknown — factor.

Here’s the main idea, though… Public broadcasting in this country is funded in complex ways, and it’s really a combination of:

• federal and sometimes state funding
• local sponsorship (advertising lite) sales to corporations
• local private donations (memberships)

This is why it’s often called a “public-private partnership.” It’s the proverbial three-legged stool at many stations. And we all know what happens when you remove one of the legs of that stool.

As to whether PBS is still “necessary” — that’s another discussion.