Disqus - Latest Comments for John Proffitt

Re: The Next Chapter

John Proffitt — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:49:38 -0000

Congratulations on the exciting changes, Leo. I'll be watching these developments for two reasons. First, because your work is entertaining. And second, because public broadcasters need to find a way to follow in your footsteps. We need to be engaging, live, focused on a community and interactive in ways we've never been before. You're blazing a trail I hope we in public media can follow.

Best wishes!

--John

Re: John Proffitt: IMA at an Impasse

John Proffitt — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:34:11 -0000

Todd, you are too kind! I'm hoping a few of us -- those of us blogging, sharing ideas -- can continue to wrestle with these issues collaboratively online. I'm delighted to participate.

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on these issues, of course. But I know you're really busy with your own transitional situation right now, too. Perhaps you can expound upon the ideas/strategies that you hope to bring to the PRP in Louisville as you go along. More stations need folks like you to help reshape their thinking, their approaches, their mindsets.

Re: BusinessWeek: Radio has little of its own stuff

John Proffitt — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:54:47 -0000

Ironically, local public media outfits are best positioned to take advantage of this weakness in commercial radio. But only if we focus locally and stop trying to reach beyond our means. Or at least that's the problem I'm experiencing in Alaska at this time. I see tremendous opportunity for us to dig in and become part of the local social DNA. Commercial radio gave up on the community years ago in favor of corporate / shareholder profits.

Either existing pubcasters will transform into locally engaged entities or someone else will come along, startup the same thing in an online context, and beat us to it. Risk and opportunity, all at once.

Re: The Wisdom of Steve Jobs

John Proffitt — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:30:47 -0000

Todd -- Thanks for posting this. I wasn't going to read the Fortune piece just because it seems like there are so many of them on Apple and Jobs. But the applicability to the public media universe is spot-on. At least if we're doing it "right," I would say.

Re: Offlining With Google Gears

John Proffitt — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:17:08 -0000

Thanks for the post, Todd. I don't travel too much, but you don't have to go far in Alaska to go offline!

I activated Google Gears this evening with RTM and was amazed at how automated and simple the process was for getting started. Much smoother experience than I expected.

Re: More on twitter and stations

John Proffitt — Sun, 04 May 2008 07:55:51 -0000

I think the line between personal and professional in terms of using something like Twitter is a moving target -- from person to person, station to station, service to service. Andy's right in pointing out the "Wheaties" example -- okay for one kind of Twitter account, not okay for another. Context is, again, king.

To me, tweets that are aimed at building, shaping or sustaining an online community as a complement to a streamed media audience and a local physical audience should be personal, much as the BPP folks have shared. But it should be personal within the context of the relationships of that community and station/program/service. The BPP examples are spot on:

* people tweeting their way to work
* people picking up bagels for the office on the way in
* "man it's early and I'm tired but I'm gonna do this show for you anyway"
* people showing excitement over an interview or a musical act coming to the studios

These are all contextual tweets -- they involve both the people and the situation of doing the show. They add texture to the experience and humanize the people that bring us this thing we like/love enough to listen to it almost every day. We already had a relationship with these folks, but now it's a deeper one and a more playful one and -- ta da! -- now it's a two-way relationship.

For the record, this isn't the first new media example like this. Blog posts have been around a lot longer and they can do the same things, albeit in a different way. Twitter reduces the cost, or "friction," of interaction to a much lower level than blogs or forum systems. It's what some call "cheap interaction" (but not in a bad sense of "cheap").

Let's keep in mind that the "audience" develops, in some cases, a deep attachment to stations and programs that "live" with them every day and share the drive to work, the office, the drive home, weekend errands and so on. We need to respect that affection and recognize it goes deeper than getting news headlines read to them over the air.

I like this discussion, by the way. This is exactly at the heart of what we're starting to discuss in Anchorage. Some of us recognize that the future will not be found in bigger and bigger Arbitron reports (though those things are important to a degree). The future will be found in the depth of our relationships with a committed community audience, not a mass audience that's marginally engaged.

Twitter is one tool that allows us to deepen that engagement, if used effectively. And it may indeed mean tweeting that you saw Iron Man this weekend and loved it or hated it. Because in a growing number of cases a tweet from someone I trust in my "community" carries more weight than a Bob Mondello review on ATC.

Re: More on twitter and stations

John Proffitt — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:55:50 -0000

I should clarify... I like Bob Mondello reviews. He's just not a personal friend.

Re: Inverted orbits

John Proffitt — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:31:04 -0000

Robert -- You could say that! My metaphor is stretched, of course. I think your recent conjuration of Galileo and other revolutionary thinkers may be more apt or educational. But I'll keep trying to use this metaphor for a while.

Re: The IMA impasse

John Proffitt — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:31:47 -0000

Amanda -- Thank you SO MUCH for your comment. You're actually the very first commenter on this site!

I agree and disagree with your assertions. I totally agree that PBS is a truck stuck in the mud, as you say. And I agree that there's lots of talented people in the system. However, I think an infusion of cash would be disastrous in the long run.

It's highly unlikely that system leaders would use a cash infusion to innovate around the current impasses at the local and national levels. True innovation and new thinking don't usually come out of organizations that are fat, dumb and happy. I fear cash would simply reinforce the existing silos, punting the ball down the field; delaying the inevitable.

If the cash could indeed be tied to reform, as you suggest, then I'm all for it. But I struggle with believing such reform could be achieved. Even with a big payday, I don't see PBS, NPR, APM, PRI, APT and major and minor stations nationwide figuring out how to move forward.

What if, instead, a big cash investment could be made solely in new media, blocking the incumbents -- stations, networks -- from getting any of the money. But I think that would be hard to get through Congress, being an untested idea.

I don't know -- let's keep thinking! Our nation deserves a nonprofit public media service, one that binds us together as a culture.

Re: The IMA impasse

John Proffitt — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:48:52 -0000

Robert -- Thanks for your comment, too! And thanks for the Tweets.

I agree we need some kind of group to lead the way. However, wasn't IMA supposed to be that group? Well, at least the advocacy part.

Your suggestion of pooling resources and expertise makes the most sense. But my experience in pubcasting to date suggests that all of the players jealously guard resources and control points and eye one another suspiciously by default. It's not healthy, but it's true.

The "pathfinders" might be a hybrid of pubcasters that "get it" and new media companies like Wikipedia that get the web but don't have to protect sacred histories or hulking infrastructures. Maybe that's where IMA is headed now -- into a brave new world with new partners. And maybe some of us can follow.

All I know right now is that my company is laden down with legacy pubcasting costs and one-way, disconnected mass media business models while our neighbors, our friends, our communities are moving forward into a sleek new networked world with the lowest cost of interaction ever achieved with truly meaningful impacts.

We need more WOSU and WETC developments. I hope you'll help more of us figure this stuff out!

Re: The IMA impasse

John Proffitt — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:14:55 -0000

Robert -- I think your approach of telling stories and sharing ideas in a FASTforward model probably make the most sense, if anything is to be achieved on a systemwide basis. I only wish I worked at a station/network large enough and influential enough to help with the process. I would, of course, pledge to participate in the discussions as desired and could even offer technical assistance in assembling the required back-end.

I, for one, see a future for stations and networks that's radically different. I've already proposed an inversion of the PBS model (PBS gives content to stations for free, PBS gathers cash directly on a national level). NPR and the other networks will likely have to do the same thing.

I'll write more about this, because we in Alaska actually have a microcosmic version of the NPR/station problem. The Alaska Public Radio Network is breaking down, due to lack of funding at all levels within the system. The fate of APRN is likely to be the fate of NPR, with one exception. NPR owns top-notch content and can draw advertising and direct listener support on a national level. It's NPR people love, not generally their local stations.

Anyway, more on that later. For now, I hope you can pull this conversation together. If anyone can, it's probably you.

Re: The IMA impasse

John Proffitt — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:28:35 -0000

Stephen -- Thanks so much for commenting. I've read your stuff for quite some time and always been impressed with the thoroughness of your commentary and solidity of your thoughts. That you would spend time replying to something I'd posted is, well... humbling!

I agree with your notion of "pushing the river," and your observation that IMA is, itself, powerless to promote its agenda within the hundreds of organizations that make up the traditional public broadcasting world. IMA is a great resource, but that's it. Someone has to choose to USE that resource. So far, very few have done so and the work done to date -- while impressive -- has not changed the game substantially.

I do think the work that Robert Paterson is doing is starting to have a real impact, at least at the stations where he's worked. Of course, those stations chose to engage him and engage their communities in new ways. Is it enough? I don't know. I just know that sitting still is not an option.

As for me, I'm not quite ready to give up on public media. Partially this is because I can indeed imagine a different service/business model that's successful. Partially because my paycheck today comes from public broadcasting, and I want to protect it. It's also because the great history of public broadcasting is worth honoring by trying to bring it into the 21st century.

But no doubt about it. I'm not sticking around indefinitely. I will either participate in a revolution (for the betterment of my community) or I'll get out.

I've often wondered, in the last couple of years, whether starting a new 501(c)(3) separate from public broadcasting would be required. The crushing infrastructure costs of public broadcasting take so much out of us. The building I work in, the towers, the microwave systems, the satellite dishes, the electrical costs and offices -- the weight of all those elements plus a staff dedicated to the old models are out of balance with our actual community impacts. We've gotten fat, dumb and happy. Only we're not happy anymore.

Anyway, I think your example with Hearts of Space has been inspiring, not depressing. You've innovated and found ways to serve your niche audience in ways that are meaningful for them and sustainable for you. You've proven it CAN be done. Sure, stations and networks are different companies and business models, but there are paths forward.

We need the kind of gadfly commentary that only you can offer. I hope you won't forsake us completely. At least not yet. ;-)

Re: The IMA impasse

John Proffitt — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:33:53 -0000

Stephen -- Ironically, this week I've participated in a lot of strategic thinking and interaction with our board, just as we've been exchanging comments.

Unfortunately, the old notions of mass media -- of "owning" big pieces of the "audience," are still in place. There's still this idea that if we just find the right mix of music / news / localism and the right "demo" we'll be okay. If we just try a little harder...

And further, I was greeted with near-jeers (friendly jeers, but still...) at an IMA 2008 dinner (written up elsewhere here) when I suggested PBS sell its stuff straight to cable/satellite and give the content to stations for free. I was told this was impossible, that PBS would never do it. I told the group (I doubt they heard me over the chatter) that it won't be PBS' choice if they want to survive.

And I've made the "pay the stations" recommendation a few times in reference to both PBS and NPR. Old hands laugh out right at that one. Not even a moment's theoretical thought is offered.

So while I haven't been burned at the stake, I've smelled the smoke!

This rubs me the wrong way, as I'm on board with Doc Searls and others that say the media environment has inverted in favor of the user and responsive creator, not the distributor. Serving a niche, no matter the size, is a two-way game now. Indeed, I started this blog specifically to explore these ideas openly -- my first post touched on the idea (though I probably didn't explain it as well as I should have).

In any case, the evidence is mounting in your view's favor. I'll labor a bit longer, perhaps tilt at a few more windmills, before walking away. The writing is definitely on the wall. Either I'll edit that writing to match the real world around me or I'll finally read it and be on my way.

The question I would ask you (or anyone else) at this point is this...

If you were going to start a locally-focused public media company today -- without the overhead of gear, people or ideas from the old public broadcasting world -- what would that look like? Is that one person and a web service? Is that a community site organized by one person but handled by volunteers? Or are geographically-centric community services passe, and we should instead focus on topical verticals, like the HoS model?

Re: The IMA impasse

John Proffitt — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:35:01 -0000

Robert -- Always helping me see the way!

As we've been developing theoretical architectures for our revised public media company in Anchorage, one of the ideas has centered on whether we should setup a separate unit to engage with the public in totally new ways, partially online, partially in person, partially with streams. We'd likely move it either into a segregated part of our building or into another facility entirely. Now I'll pursue that a little more forcefully, as it feels more necessary.

I've even said in the past we (at my company) need to start and fund a separate unit that would, in the end, come back and "buy" the remnants of the old, tattered company that didn't adapt to the changes in the media world. Maybe that is the future. Apple did it when they started the Macintosh unit and used the cash cow of the Apple II to pay for everything. The Apple II people hated it, but it make the Mac flourish.

Our company might be able ot buck the trend, however, for a couple reasons. First, our new CEO is from outside public media and is not bound by that tradition (though he is bound by the old newspaper traditions -- which might be worse!), and second, three managers out of the seven are calling for a whole-company conceptual revision, one that would tear apart all the old allegiances and silos in favor of a new model. So it's possible. But I do think it's risky.

In any case, I'm going back to the drawing board this coming week and see if we can break of a :VOCALO of our own.

By the way, :VOCALO is way cool. I spent time chatting with their GM while at IMA -- she's really inventive, energetic and smart -- and hope to talk with her more about this experience of firing up a new division with a totally different style than the parent company.

And I'm looking forward to notes from your conversations with Malatea. He's one of those inventive guys many of us wish we could have as a CEO.

Re: The IMA impasse

John Proffitt — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:45:53 -0000

Steve -- Thanks for the comment, and in fact I saw your blog post when it appeared in Twitter. So you have at least one reader!

While I do wonder out loud in this post as to whether the IMA is at an impasse in its advocacy work inside public media, I think I'd want to go again next year for the simple reason that we did hit something of a wall this year (my opinion). So what happens next? Will IMA and its proponents (anyone pushing for transformation within the system) remain at the wall or find our way around it in new, creative ways? Will there be more players there from outside the traditional pubcasting community? Where does IMA go next? That alone would be fascinating.

I like your secret blogging team concept. We had a nascent form of it this year via Twitter, but could use something more concrete and coordinated, I suspect, to be more useful to remote parties. I'd also love to see a video project out of the conference -- a documentary-style program that follows a few folks around the conference, each from various "camps" in the public media world, and documents their thoughts/reactions. We could then get a composite view of a complex conference.

The next IMA, impasse or not, looks to be very interesting.

Re: Required Reading: FREE!

John Proffitt — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:53:44 -0000

Yes, NPR fees are killer. They aren't the biggest expense for our station, but they rank up there in the top 5, to be sure. And every dollar spent on NPR is a dollar not spent on developing services that strengthen our community engagement.

Don't get me wrong -- NPR (and PRI and APM and ...) content is great stuff and it is the primary attractor for our audience today. However, what's the point of a local station if all you do is broadcast national content and toss in a little local stuff to appear relevant? Answer: there is no point. NPR could easily buy our station today, cut our staff to two local people and maintain the same service we have now. The rest could be easily automated. (Indeed, for several months in 2007 we ran our station with two people -- literally).

If NPR (and others) released their content to us for free, we'd have more money left to focus on local connection -- the only sustainable mission we can have. We'd be more capable of engaging people in our community. Free cash is not the only answer -- we also need a strong mission focus and understanding of WHY WE'RE HERE and WHO WE SERVE, but with a clear mission, we'd know how to spend our money wisely.

I'm becoming more convinced that NPR and other national players (e.g. PBS, APM, APT, PRI) need to think and act nationally and not take a paternalistic view of the legacy local stations. Local media entities will have to figure out their missions on their own. And NPR should be making "friends" outside the legacy station group anyway.

Re: NPR / Ken Stern article links (updated)

John Proffitt — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:03:26 -0000

Kerry -- Thanks for the link and the full article. The paper requires registration and I didn't want to bother. But I'm going to go ahead and add the link to the list, especially since this adds yet another layer to the story.

We love Haarsager in Alaska, so we're sorry to see him leave WSU and take a job that's going to eat up all of his time. Maybe he'll remember us -- someday! ;-)

Re: NPR / Ken Stern article links (updated)

John Proffitt — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:36:39 -0000

Current pointed out an additional article this morning -- on their site, not here, and involving OTM covering Current covering the story. So I'm adding it to the collection above. It's a good one.

http://tinyurl.com/2zkud4

Re: iBiquity: How a closed-source model is killing HD Radio

John Proffitt — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:58:09 -0000

HD Radio, even if the intellectual property were open sourced today, is not likely to catch on for several technical reasons I didn't mention in the post. But put simply, digital radio signals, as designed within the HD Radio format, lack the power necessary to be as ubiquitous as FM or AM. They don't penetrate buildings as well, they don't degrade gracefully (into fuzzier and fuzzier sound), and they're inefficient, as digital wireless designs go (because they're designed to ride on the coat tails of the main FM or AM signal.

Plus, HD Radio isn't the Internet, which offers all the benefits of one-way distribution in conjunction with two-way communication. However, I suspect that if an open source project (or a fully shared industry standard development process like the IEEE does with 802.11 and other standards) were to undertake the development of a new wireless 1-way (or mildly 2-way) technology, it might work. If we are to dump analog radio for a new digital format at some point, this would be the preferred development process. The resulting service needs to be owned by no one and everyone at the same time.

As Rob says above, web "radio" or audio streams are the successor to FM and AM, if there's any successor. Internet audio streams remain bigger than HD Radio even after several years of iBiquity's pushing on the market and it continues to grow faster. Check out this graphic (by Bridge Ratings) for proof...

http://tinyurl.com/2prdmm

The upshot is that it's too late for HD Radio anyway.

Re: Tending the Public Media Tribe

John Proffitt — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:19:29 -0000

Rob -- I think you're absolutely right, and that's the approach I'm taking in rethinking our strategies here in Anchorage. I do think the 1,000 number is totally arbitrary and depending on the scale of your operation, it may not be enough. Maybe we need 5,000 fans. Nevertheless, the core idea seems right for the 21st century -- get that core, that tribe, that committed group, serve them well as a partner (not as a parent) and they will support you.

For those of you out there that may not know of the "1,000 True Fans" idea that recently became a meme, you can read the source document from Kevin Kelly here...

http://tinyurl.com/32zzlp

Re: Apple II vs. Macintosh — Can public media follow this example?

John Proffitt — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:24:05 -0000

You said it Steve! I didn't want to muddy the argument with the idea that you might need to take cash from a struggling unit, but that's the situation I'm in here in Anchorage. We have a business that's been fundamentally declining for years now, yet we still have to grapple with the innovation problem.

It may be that our "Macintosh division" will have to be started outside the company entirely, as Stephen Hill has suggested in other comments on this site and on his own.

I'd like to think we're smart enough to reinvent ourselves in situ, but that's definitely a long shot. Most companies are unable to innovate away their history.

My hope is that we're small enough to be able to turn things around without imploding in the process. By changing out some key positions (employees) and our organizational structure, we might just be able to make it.

Re: Apple II vs. Macintosh — Can public media follow this example?

John Proffitt — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:15:20 -0000

(Disclosure: Karen and I presently work in the same company.)

For me, "profit" occurs any time your income outpaces your expenses and/or you're in a position to decide where to invest that excess cash. Whether you're incorporated as a nonprofit or not, this should be happening virtually all the time if you're running the business well.

The common (and I would argue "simplistic") nonprofit approach is to raise expenses higher and higher to absorb all that income. But we shouldn't be in the habit of spending every last penny. We need reserves. We need risk capital. We need funding for both rainy days and for investing in new services when they're needed to fulfill our mission. What we need is a guideing strategy that controls investments in service of a mission/goal larger than an annual budget or quarterly balance sheet.

From what I've seen so far, there are lots of public media companies making enough money to be able to fund new ventures, both out of their own coffers and will help from foundations, the CPB, etc. It's a matter of priority, a matter of choice.

But let's go one step further.

We're in a period of rapid and far-reaching media change, yes? We have income from the old media model that we've been using for the past 30-40 years. But that income is beginning to decline (in a macro sense; individual station experiences will vary).

In this situation -- falling income / rapid media change-- do you...

[1] Take the income you're still getting and invest further and further into the declining model, in the hopes that you're just not investing enough and this will turn things around?

or

[2] Take the income you're getting, maintain the old model, but only make capacity-building investments in the new model?

I would suggest that #1 is doomed to failure. The old model is declining for reasons well beyond your own capacity to execute on that model. It's not an efficiency or effectiveness problem, it's a strategic innovation problem.

Apple's take was to maintain the old model for a long time in parallel with the new model. The Apple II series went on for years after the Mac's 1984 introduction. Indeed, variations of the Apple II were on sale through 1992 -- 8 years after the Mac's introduction (although the last real Apple I innovation arrived in 1989).

For public media companies, I think the Apple model, with some caveats, still makes broad strategic sense. We should maintain existing services in status quo mode, with a few innovations around the edges. Broadcast media is still profitable and in heavy use (esp. in certain demos) and worthy of support. But all our risk capital, our strategic investments, should be made in new technologies, new platforms -- the things that will last the next 10, 20, 30 years.

We won't get rich building these new interactive community media platforms. And perhaps the scale of public broadcasting's old success can never be achieved again anyway. But if the spirit and mission of public media is to survive in a new world, we're going to have to redirect our cash and commitment.

If we operate with a mental model that says "we don't have the money for that," then we're done here.

Re: IMA 2008 conference audio posted

John Proffitt — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:38:53 -0000

Thanks, John. I'm hoping some folks find it useful out there. I've already listened to some great sessions I missed at the conference. Maybe you, me and a few others could blog about the "best of IMA 2008" or something, highlighting the goodies.

Re: Why innovation must be part of public media’s DNA

John Proffitt — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:13:05 -0000

Agreed. It's almost Old Testament in its appeal -- this begat that, and so on. You can definitely see how the bottom half of the chart set the stage for the top half.

You could also say the chart shows, especially in the last couple of decades, a move from hardware and physical objects to software and intellectual property or virtual objects. It's not like the notion of packaged media was revolutionary when the DVD arrived on the scene -- that was just a mashup of consumer video tape and the audio CD (or LaserDisc).

I think the delay in the development/deployment of WiMax (or similar technologies) is driven by several factors, not the least of which is the chicken-and-egg principle (if I can call it that). Sure, there are other difficulties like the physics of radio wave propagation and such. But if I'm sitting at Sprint, trying to decide where to invest, do I noodle around the edges and make more money from my existing customers, or do I make a bold play for an unproven "next gen" technology that will, as you point out, cost billions to develop and deploy? Go safe or go risky? Hmmm. Well, no one every got fired for buying IBM...

In that respect, I think the truly revolutionary technologies -- the disruptive ones, the ones we don't immediately understand -- take either truly revolutionary leadership or a groundswell of market demand to appear. And that's just plain rare. To me, there's only 5 revolutionary technologies on that chart, and that's probably being generous.

Perhaps that's one of the things that irritates me most about public media's intransigence in the face of an innovating media marketplace. It's not that the technologies themselves are prohibitively expensive, nor are we being asked to invent the wheel without ever having seen anything round. The models are all around us and the technology costs are falling through the floor. The risks of innovation today are low. The risks of avoiding innovation, however, are high and rising.

Lord help us (in public media) if WiMax or its cousins really do reach a point of virtual ubiquity in the next 5 years.

Re: Why innovation must be part of public media’s DNA

John Proffitt — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:29:17 -0000

Hmmm... Universities could potentially play a role, although not every community has a university. But if the development of the Internet is any cue, universities can definitely play a role here. Though started by the Department of Defense, the academic community really built out the Internet and turned it into an important communications medium.

Today, academics have access to Internet2 and are still innovating, though mostly it's bandwidth development with a few minor innovations.

The one thing I hope our innovators remember is the lesson of HD Radio vs. WiFi (or insert your favorite tech references here). HD Radio was developed in secret and the technology is owned by a single company that charges out the wazoo for licensing. WiFi is an industry standard held in trust by the IEEE and developed over time by a consortium of companies that, while competing, agreed that a standard was better than no standard.

Or how about this idea... What if public media companies developed -- wait for it -- public media? We have towers and RF experience. Why not participate with our communities to develop two-way wireless communications services in the public interest?

Re: Why innovation must be part of public media’s DNA

John Proffitt — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:02:38 -0000

Stephen -- I was really thinking on a smaller scale. In my market -- Anchorage -- there was an abortive attempt to do municipal WiFi last year. It died when the commercial vendors that signed a deal backed out at the last minute. They figured out there wasn't enough money in it.

I actually don't think that our existing tower infrastructure, even peppered with WiMax gear, could get the job done in our area or most metro areas. WiMax or its successors is much more likely to piggyback on the cellular system and cellular towers, which are sprinkled across the landscape.

But on a smaller scale, on the WiFi scale, what if we, a public media company, partnered with our host community government and deployed hotspots across the city and managed that infrastructure in the public interest? I think that's an idea worth exploring, especially if the capital funds are covered by grants and the operating costs are covered by ad revenue or minimal subscription fees.

I do NOT think we should develop technologies out of thin air and wait for folks to show up. Others have suggested to me we use the "extra" DTV bandwidth and sell it off for rented distance education services, data services, etc. That's crazy talk -- it requires the development of technologies that are parallel to existing tools and would be used by the tiniest of niche markets.

And, sorry to say it, but the tremendous offer made by Mike Homer -- the Open Media Network -- is great as an infrastructure service, but is a bad idea from a player perspective. How many media players do I have to download and use? Who's going to keep developing and redeveloping the player for new platforms? That was a great gift, but it was a gift that made sense for about 5 minutes in technology terms.

So I'm with you, Stephen -- we gotta be smart about this and not try to invent our own technology ghettoes (a la HD Radio). But at the same time, we also have to dream big. Let's blend off-the-shelf technology with true public service notions that the commercial space won't touch.

Re: Why innovation must be part of public media’s DNA

John Proffitt — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:42:11 -0000

Stephen -- No need to apologize! Any cynicism you share is hard-earned through efforts to work within the system. I was disappointed to see nothing really come of the PSP idea myself. The PSP was presented at the first IMA I attended and I was genuinely excited -- it sounded to me like there were some real thinkers in the system and after a bit of wrangling we'd be on our way. Oh, well.

As for infrastructure stuff, I was definitely thinking on a purely local scale. And it comes from the notion that we already operate some infrastructure in the form of broadcast TV and radio towers/transmitters. Some of us also have repeaters and translators. So we already operate complex infrastructure in the public interest. Yes, a WiFi project would extend our reach into a new medium with a totally different model, but I think that would be good for us. The nature of being a media company today cannot be constrained by a single tower site and a single frequency setup in a one-way fashion -- our engineering capacity needs to morph just as the media technologies do.

Money? Well, that's another matter. But you wouldn't start such a project if you didn't know whether you could finish it. And considering the dollars that always seem to be available for capital projects in nonprofit land, I'd be surprised if the seed money couldn't be gathered if the value proposition is sufficient.

In any case, based on your comments and what I've seen at IMA and in talking with others in the industry, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that successfully fulfilling our missions as local media companies (the stations, not the networks) will require localized strategy and action. Waiting for some CPB marching orders to come down from on high, telling us exactly what to do and how to do it is nonsense. Conversely, national success (for PBS, NPR) will have to be achieved at the national level with national scale -- not while waiting for the stations to green-light only the projects that aren't "threatening" to the status quo of locals.

Success for the "system," it seems to me, will only come when national and local entities agree to disentangle themselves and develop new strategies based on the new economic world we find ourselves in. There's too much history and too many conflicting purposes for us to all go forward together in harmony.

Well, now *I* sound cynical! But I don't really feel that way. I still believe we have opportunity here. Do we have the right leadership to pull it off? Ask me again in six months. By then, I'll at least know about my own company.

Re: It’s high time for real-time community engagement

John Proffitt — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:43:22 -0000

I'm thinking about the three C's this way...

Content = negligible value (sometimes positive, sometimes neutral, sometimes negative)

Content + Context = Value
* We share a content experience in a way that's meaningful to us, to our community. It might be content that's of interest to a community gathered around that topic, or it might be content that's relevant to a geographical community, etc.

Content + Contact = Value
* We share a content experience in the same space (physical or virtual) and talk about it, react together, share.

Content + Context + Contact = Extreme Value
* This is where the True Fans phenomenon appears -- we share content, we share contact, and we have a shared context of meaning and experience. This is what Seth Godin calls the "tribe."

To relate this to the presidential campaign, I think Clinton started out in a Content mode -- I have these ideas, these policies, I have this track record. Obama started out with Context -- I feel we're on the wrong track, we're not focusing on the deeper issues, we're not talking to one another, we're talking past one another, do you feel the same way?

Perhaps this is why Obama's message continues to resonate -- he's getting at something deeper than policy ideas.

Re: links for 2008-03-25

John Proffitt — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:45:27 -0000

@Robert -- Is there a pony in here? ...is that a Canadian expression? New to me!

I like the idea of free stuff from NPR for my station. I've advocated for that before and will again. For it to work would require a sort of honest renegotiation of the relationship between stations and NPR, which would be hard, but technically possible. NPR would have to be freed from the shackles of station "ownership" and stations would have to learn/relearn to engage locally and deeply.

As pointed out in another comment on another post today (by Steve Bass from OPB), there's a problem of scale here, and it affects radio as much as TV. Big, mass market, mass media players can be sustainable on advertising revenue and other sources. Tiny niche players can also be sustainable with some advertising, but also donors and deep engagement with "true fans." Then there's the rest of us in the middle. We're getting squeezed.

Here in Anchorage we have an (excessively) large technical infrastructure and a host of costs that go along with being a traditional public media company, including fees paid to NPR and PBS. This economic weight holds us down, prevents us from engaging with the public effectively, makes us risk-averse and guides our decisions into strategic cul-de-sacs that protect our history rather than authentically share with our community. It's all we can do to keep the national programming flowing over the transmitters.

Re: Why traditional TV production is dead

John Proffitt — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:54:26 -0000

Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Mosca. I wasn't expecting international readers, but it's great to have you here.

I know nothing about Italian television, but I suspect the same economic issues apply in Italy as they do in the United States.

Re: Why traditional TV production is dead

John Proffitt — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:33:53 -0000

@Rosenblum -- Agreed. Newspapers, in some cases, are making major strides. In the local markets, I think it'll be a battle between the incumbent TV folks (who are still largely blinded by their advertising revenues) and the newspapers (who aren't blinded by revenues, but by inertia). Newspapers are, ironically, better suited to move to the web because they've got the text and photo thing nailed down (skill-wise) and can learn video. TV folks, it seems to me, will have a much harder time learning text and photos.

Public media outlets actually have some real opportunity here. However, we may be too cash-poor to take advantage of the situation. We're very trapped in the old models and are emotionally attached (nonprofits seem to do this more than for-profits). I could easily see developing an "NPR of video" for local / regional / national news and doing it on the web. That could be a killer service. Deadly, perhaps, to the incumbent cable "news" channels.

In any case, thanks for stopping by and commenting. I'm a huge fan of your blog and hope, one day, to send some journalists to one of your VJ boot camps. Someday...

Re: Why traditional TV production is dead

John Proffitt — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:53:01 -0000

@Steve Bass -- You know, I focus so much on the environment I'm in (small- to mid-market) that I'm not as well-versed in the big market situation. It's hard to wrap my head around how a comparatively large company like OPB or WGBH or WNET or KQED or others in the top-tier markets could really be facing the same issues. But of course you are, and I appreciate you sharing the insight and correcting that part of my thinking.

Plus, I think your scale comments are right on. As Mark Fuerst said recently at the IMA conference, there seem to be two successful kinds of scale in media (new media especially) -- huge and tiny. Folks in the middle are getting squeezed from each side as small players have virtually no overhead to support or legacy to protect, and the largest players can leverage mass audience economics.

I didn't think of OPB being in the middle, but in the grand scheme of things I suppose it is. As Fuerst also likes to point out, the entire public media industry in the U.S. is only about as big an economy as the National Hockey League. Compare that to the rest of the media world and yeah, it's not that big.

And I remember your Current article. For other folks out there, you can read it here...
http://tinyurl.com/2pvypb

I wish I'd been blogging back then. That's a great article. Hopefully it's gotten some traction (it may have -- I don't travel in the fundraising circles).

Re: Why traditional TV production is dead

John Proffitt — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:33:40 -0000

Sorry for the delayed approval on your comment, Jim. And I think you're totally right. It seems like we have to unlearn things in order to change. I'm thinking about new modes of production (both live and recorded) that require less gear, less editing, less people, less cost across the board. It will mean we won't win Emmys for production quality, but we might just make a real connection with our community. I'm hoping it's the right approach.

And by the way, you may remember Duncan Moon from your past work -- he certainly remembers you. His office and mine share a wall and he has said lots of kind things about your work and your methods. If you ever want to do some free consulting (ha!) we sure could use your experience and smarts in Alaska!

Re: Why traditional TV production is dead

John Proffitt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:15:04 -0000

Greg -- I totally agree that traditional TV and media remain dominant from an ad-spend perspective to date, and will likely remain that way for a while. Old models that involve ingrained behaviors on the part of the public die slowly, not quickly. Cooper's right -- there's no singular event horizon that will define the shift.

That said, I think the value of the FCC license for local over-the-air broadcasting has rapidly declining value. It's not dead, and will never fully die, but it's declining. And it's probably worst for "traditional" pubTV operators and any local network affiliate that has a weak local operation.

I think four things make it worse for pubTV stations:

1. They're not generally run by hard-nosed numbers/business people. When you have a literal bottom line and cash-hungry investors, it tends to focus your goals and activities. PubTV is a softer business with softer goals. Don't get me wrong -- you can make money, even good money, with a pubTV local license. The leadership is not arrayed to solve business math problems, but community service problems. As the TV market has fractured, most of the pubTV system has missed the boat financially and strategically.

2. Many stations, through declining revenues, have slashed local operations, shrunken their local engagement activities, and basically become glorified repeaters for the national outlets (e.g. PBS). That's a commodity move, and commodity businesses are margin businesses. See #1. And in this commodity business, costs are going up, viewership/revenue is going down. That doesn't last.

3. Cable TV has created a large and growing number of niches for viewers, allowing folks to find content categories on demand. PBS still plays a grab-bag game, smashing together all kinds of different content. Aggregated quality is good, but findability and meeting my needs when/where I want them met trumps quality. The only thing PBS has broken out in the last few years are some kids services, and that was a battle. In a world of niches, PBS is still playing a walled-garden portal game.

4. Local TV businesses, even more than nationals, have been slow to adapt to changing TV production models (smaller, lighter, faster, more naturalistic, local, cheaper, etc.). Speaking from where I sit, I work with people that openly long for the 1980s TV world, when the money flowed easily and the staffing and equipment were plentiful and cutting-edge. They all want to win an Emmy with every production. They pooh-pooh projects that are "too small" for their own professional goals. PubTV incumbents are kind of stuck because of this mismatch of talents and goals compared to strategic requirements. In that way, pubTV is just like commercial TV, newspapers, and so on.

Advertising dollars will continue to flow to the big boxes in the living rooms that are hooked up to traditional video sources. But that money is moving away, diversifying, shrinking as audiences similarly fracture. As a single outlet of advertising cash, TV is likely to remain dominant for many years, and no other single outlet will challenge it -- perhaps ever.

Perhaps that's the biggest takeaway: the future does not offer a singularly dominant medium through which all ad dollars will flow.

Re: Community, Community, Community

John Proffitt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:27:07 -0000

Thanks for the word, Grant! Having spent a year in purgatory (teaching high school English), the word cohort for me evokes an education mindset with a statistical edge. So I see what you mean, but feel a little funny using that word. Isn't it funny how we all assign these extra meanings to words based on personal experience?

I'm with you 100% on "community." But as much as I dislike it, I still catch myself using it! Let's keep this conversation going, if possible.

Re: Community, Community, Community

John Proffitt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:28:08 -0000

@Rob Fellowship has a nice Ring to it (pun fully intended). Though for me that has religious overtones. I suppose I'm just going to have to get over myself, huh? ;-)

Re: Community, Community, Community

John Proffitt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:32:21 -0000

@Lisa -- Yes! I like tribe. Though in Alaska there's definitely an ethnic component to that word. But as a fellow follower of Seth Godin's writing, I do like it. It has an earthy tone to it, an organic component.

Constituency is actually a good one, but I think you're right -- it sounds like you're running for office when you use it. But it's definitely accurate, and it doesn't have to be geographically bound.

And I struggle with the use of the word "engagement," as you pointed out. I've definitely used engage a lot lately. Perhaps Jean Luc Picard has seeped too far into my consciousness? ;-)

To escape the engagement trap, maybe we could use participation? Co-creation? I really don't want to sound like a cheesy consultant, but maybe we'll have to use some of these words anyway.

Re: If ‘newspapers’ can die, then ‘public broadcasting’ can die, too

John Proffitt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:40:32 -0000

Dan -- thanks for the comment. I actually think a station that has a low percentage of CPB revenue is in a much better position. Because you can use that 10%, say, to fund traditional broadcasting operations and development. The other 90% is theoretically free to do whatever you want, right? Well, sort of.

The less you're beholden to the "B" in CPB, the more freedom you have to do public media or new media or social media or whatever you want to call it.

Of course, a lot of this talk is theoretical and forward-looking. The reality is that Broadcasting brings in the most money for now and, for as long as mass media models hold sway, will dominate our operations. But I still see a day when that will fundamentally fall apart.

I have to say, as much as I love public media, I barely listen to radio or watch TV -- public or otherwise -- anymore. I get my news online (thus breaking my dependence on NPR) and find social media much more rewarding than mass media. I'm not typical, of course, but what if social media adherents -- like Robert Paterson -- are simply at the leading edge?

Re: HD Radio: A technology only an engineer could love

John Proffitt — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:13:19 -0000

Actually, that's a point I neglected to mention. Traditional RF engineers like the IDEA of HD Radio, but the interference it can create is something they don't like, especially in any metro area where the radio dial is fairly packed or for any station where there's another station very close on the frequency spectrum.

Simply described, HD Radio's digital signals are embedded on the edges of the core FM or AM carrier wave, so it's comparatively easy for the signal to bleed over into adjacent frequencies, which then interferes with traditional radio signals in some cases.

Separately, the FCC's proposal to turn over TV Channel 6 to FM radio usage could help alleviate overall spectrum crunches but it won't help with the design of HD Radio's signal patterns.

The severity of the problem is debatable because it's highly situational. It's really bad in some situations and not a problem in others. That makes fighting about it really complex, and most consumers can't follow it.

Of course, most consumers don't really care about HD Radio to start with, which makes it all the harder to generate political support for either camp.

Re: TV News: Just die already

John Proffitt — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:39:46 -0000

Yeah, I watched the Tim Robbins speech last night on the web. Very good stuff. Funny how Hollywood (e.g. West Wing, et. al.) seems to understand what we need more than any politician. Yet Hollywood is also the source of the problem, as profits drive mass "news" away from real issues.

I separately visited Michael Rosenblum's web site last night and suggested, in response to a post of his, that he should pitch the VJ news idea to NPR. PBS is too lost in its own decay to take on a new challenge. But NPR has the leadership and vision and financial stability to take on a great new mission.

Truth is, NPR isn't going to grow much more via radio. But via video and the web and maybe even TV they could make a killing. A large number of people in the U.S. -- more than I would have thought -- seems ready for serious news coverage.

Re: J-Week 2008: Web Extras Toolkit

John Proffitt — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:58:48 -0000

Stephen -- Thanks for the G9 recommendation. You're in good company -- that's a popular camera with a great history. If I were getting a good camera right now that wasn't an SLR, that would probably be it.

Re: All a-Twitter

John Proffitt — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:52:37 -0000

I've gotten grief about using Twitter from my wife. Until I got her using it this week!

But now I'm wondering if that was such a good idea. Short of direct messaging everyone, I can't hide -- the club now accepts women! So much for the cigars and brandy.

Re: Latest podcasting study is out

John Proffitt — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:02:05 -0000

While the study shows an uptake in listeners / users of podcasts, it's still way down there on the list of media consumption for the average person out there.

I think making content available in a searchable, subscribable and on-demand way is a requirement. But what Robert suggests above is definitely the next evolution -- taking the TiVo or Amazon metaphor of "what else you might like" to podcasting (or really, anything on the web).

Currently, I think only Google has the mass to pull off a feat like this. It would be hard for a web site to arrive on the scene and build a segment-dominating service that would aggregate all listeners / readers / viewers / users into a central system.

I suspect that Google's development of the OpenSocial platform (if it goes the way I hope) could become the backbone of such a recommendation and sharing system. And given that it's an interoperable platform (in theory), then it doesn't matter where I do my media consumption or express my media preferences -- that preference and usage data can feed systems (that I authorize) and interact with my "friends" everywhere.

But that platform is likely years off, given all the players participating in its development.

In the mean time, public media companies have GOT to start experimenting in the social media space and start building (or re-building) their community relationships. I can't speak for all public media outlets, but I can assure you the one I work for is woefully disconnected from the community. Social participation / interaction will be the core of our our mission going forward, not podcasting. Podcasting will be one delivery system among so many. But without relationships -- without Context and Contact -- the Content will have no value.

Re: Brief update… and a question

John Proffitt — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:04:22 -0000

@whardier -- I've had some glitches with the e-mail movement from Outlook to Gmail via IMAP. It seems to error out a lot. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong? I have to restart all kinds of those sessions to keep it running.

I also ran into trouble using Google's transfer tools -- via IMAP to my own server it would pull out all the content in the Public Folders as well as the user's own folders. I could probably restrict the connection just to user folders, but haven't figured that out yet.

The good news is that as a formal nonprofit company, we get access to the "Education" edition, which is 95% the same as the paid version, with all the tools. The only real difference is the fact that I don't get a 25GB mailbox per person. But that's not a problem -- many users will go from a 0.25 GB mailbox to a 6.7 GB mailbox overnight!

I may tap you for more info later!

Re: Brief update… and a question

John Proffitt — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:07:06 -0000

@Robert... Indeed! This is a perfect tool for nonprofits that don't want to spend the money to run their own systems and who want lots of newfangled tools -- all for free.

There's a free edition of Google Apps that includes advertising in the webmail system. Then there's a paid version for normal corporations that costs $50 per user per year. But for official nonprofits and schools, there's another free version that dumps the advertising and offers all the features.

So definitely recommend Google Apps to any nonprofit org that needs e-mail!

(The only problem would be with healthcare companies in the U.S. -- the privacy and security requirements of U.S. regulations would put Google Apps off the list of options for e-mail services.)

Re: News: Our most important edge

John Proffitt — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:00:05 -0000

Thanks guys!

I feel like I completely dissed all the non-news stuff in public media, which I don't want to do out of hand. I think there's lots of non-news (cultural) stuff that only public media can do, too. And should do.

But news -- factual, insightful, relevant news -- is the lifeblood of our democracy in media, it directly impacts our ability to self-govern. Through quality news we can make informed decisions about other investments, such as investments in cultural things.

I think the function of libraries -- the keepers of information after it passes from contemporality into history -- are also critical in this way, though they have less immediacy.

Re: News: Our most important edge

John Proffitt — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:25:44 -0000

Thanks for the comment Michael. Yeah, it seems so obvious to me now, but I think it's easy for all of us to forget -- we're right in the middle of it and just do it out of habit.

I'm hopeful we'll do exactly what you're promoting -- more and more LOCAL news. Then all we have to do is figure out how to share that in a meaninful and federated way across the country.

Re: On advertising market shifts

John Proffitt — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:37:43 -0000

Thanks for the comment PS! I'm wondering... what might public media companies to do attract sales talent into the fold -- talent that's especially good at understanding these things? Would it just be money?

I mean, if I wanted to hire a sales person or manager or team that was focused on selling on multiple platforms and understood new media sales models and all that, would I just setup a high-paying (high commission) environment and then search for the best, most experienced commercial sales folks I could find? This is a tough one, I think. We need hard-nosed sales teams to keep moving us forward (without compromising our values or the law as laid down by the FCC, of course).

I do think your last points make a ton of sense. We need to bring in folks that are real-world (even commercial world) "pros" in their work. And we need to be prepared to be transformed by them. Indeed, we need to ask them to help transform us.

There's a growing place for public media in the world as commercial media devolves into a a crass miasma of marketing. It deserves support, financial support, and can help a thoughtful audience connect with thoughtful companies along the way.

Re: On advertising market shifts

John Proffitt — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:49:39 -0000

"We tend to analyze the cost of replacing people - which is not insignificant - but we don’t analyze the cost of under performance."

Talk about a great quote. Ain't that the truth!

Re: Can you imagine doing this in your public broadcasting company?

John Proffitt — Fri, 30 May 2008 21:44:32 -0000

Todd, you get the award for buzzword of the day!

And I know you're secretly marketing the new book, "Groundswell," from the two social media analysts (Li and Bernoff) at Forrester.

Tell you what... I'll see your buzzword and raise you an Amazon link!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1422125009

Re: Changing tires on the public media bus at 60mph

John Proffitt — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:09:30 -0000

Lisa -- Definitely food for thought! Thanks for the comments.

The culture issue is a tough one. I tend to agree with Lewis' notion of top-down culture because only those with control can set behavior expectations and dole out rewards and punishments based on adherence to the code. I think the notion of spontaneously-organizing culture, even online, is a false one. Wikipedia, for all its merits, is not nearly as "everyone gets to edit" as its own marketing would have you believe. To be organized and efficient you need an organization, and it has to be run by someone.

That said, it would be foolish for such leaders to dismiss the naturally-occurring cultural ideas that bubble up -- so long as those ideas fit into the cultural framework that's required to make the company effective.

I think of the much-lauded Zappos example that's making the rounds these days. That company has an intense culture, but it's been architected by the company owners/leaders, not developed by the staff or the customers. Now that they have the culture they intended, the company is growing wildly and they even pay new employees cold, hard cash to QUIT if they don't want to work in the culture they company has developed.

Separately, I do agree that color-by-numbers approaches to business management or strategy are silly, but such frameworks simply help organize thoughts and give points on which leaders can mentally grasp the company. Even Bob Lewis would likely say that there aren't really a set 10 dimensions in every situation. But it's a way to frame the discussion, which is fine by me.

And I further agree with your point about public media not involving the public -- that's been a long-standing problem that, in the age of the Internet, is now being exposed. I've certainly seen senior managers dismissing the notion that we involve the public more in our deliberations about how best to serve our community. "It's too much trouble," or "we know what to do" are the common (albeit paraphrased) refrains. So we really don't know how best to serve the community because, well... we haven't asked!

(Some will debate me on that point, referring to studies or surveys and such. But those are mechanical procedures in most cases, usually used to reinforce what you're already doing.)

As for costs and content, I don't know that I would say content wants to be free. Everyone that consumes content wants it to be free, but that will never happen. There's always a cost somewhere. Whether it's your own time and effort in creating your own content or paying with your attention while watching advertising embedded with content or paying directly for subscription services -- someone, somewhere has to make this stuff and they need to feed themselves and their families.

The cost of making pro-quality TV is astronomical and only getting worse. There's a new class of production that's several steps down from there, but then you have a generational and technology gap. The "old school" pubmedia producers all want to do "the best" and they assume that means they must spend the most. But I think true public service -- the "best" we should be aiming for -- is not based upon HD broadcasting excellence. It's about being local, engaged, human, intelligent and open to the community. We should go cheaper on the tech and spend more on building relationships.

But that's me talking.

Re: Internet memory lane

John Proffitt — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:21:42 -0000

Not to be too flip, but I think you change the allocations by changing the allocations.

Okay, that *was* pretty flip. ;-) But I think it's fundamentally accurate.

Where and how we allocate our resources is a matter of choice. Do we spend $100,000 on a 60-minute localized TV documentary this year or do we spend that money on a couple people that do digital and real-world community-building? That's a choice (one of about a billion possible combinations across the pub media system).

I get your point about diluting our content focus, but I would say that presently we're overflowing with content, at least if we pool it nationally and if we pull content from public media producers that are new on the scene (such as the Conversations Network).

So the quick answer, my quick answer, to your question is that you must divert some of that content money to spend it on "context" projects. Start small, don't reinvent the wheel, experiment, rapidly iterate, etc. But know that continuing to just do content isn't a growth strategy, and it's probably not even a status quo strategy.

Re: Internet memory lane

John Proffitt — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:00:25 -0000

Paul, you wouldn't be referring to anyplace in particular, would you? ;-)

The notion that we're overflowing with content comes from my own view of the volume of creditable content developed every day/week/month across the nation in public media outlets, compared to the carrying capacity of any local broadcast outlet. There's tons of quality content out there that my station does not carry simply due to the fact that we have only 24 hours available on any given day. Even with multichannel HD and DTV (which are technological flops, I would argue, at least for now), there's still tons out there, especially if you allow yourself to dip into the back catalog.

But your point is well made. Get smart people, give a broad direction, turn them loose, actively expect great things and you're likely to come up with good content / public service.

And the capital comments are priceless -- no pun intended. In an age when the technology costs are dropping to near zero, and in a funding regime that buys stuff but doesn't pay for service, it's easy to get trapped into thinking technology is the solution. It's not. It's a tool, not a solution.

Re: Breaking the silence; looking back, looking forward

John Proffitt — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:17:42 -0000

Thanks David and Gary! It was definitely a wild ride, and it's only settling down in the latter half of this week. I'm looking forward to a positive and growing future at APTI for me and my colleagues. And when the time comes, I'll share insights on that process that, for today, must remain private.

Re: Breaking the silence; looking back, looking forward

John Proffitt — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:52:57 -0000

You guys are too nice. We should form the League of Johns!

Re: Mr. Hooper must be turning over in his grave

John Proffitt — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:58:34 -0000

Best part: the hand waving at the end when he says "imagination." Far better than "air quotes." Sort of a cross between air quotes and jazz hands. Kills me every time.

Re: Mr. Hooper must be turning over in his grave

John Proffitt — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:12:22 -0000

Chris, you teach me a dirty word lesson every time we talk! I honor the creatively filthy river in which your mind flows. Namaste. ;-)

Re: On the death of BPP

John Proffitt — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:16:02 -0000

@MKinMotion Thanks for the comment. I think you're right that an "indie" podcast is much more supportable online. NPR was trying to build yet another national show based on the radio distribution framework and expectations of sustainability traditionally placed upon NPR programs.

NPR's success over the past 20 years, and the nature of its codependent relationship with more than 500 stations around the country, blinds it to new opportunities and the new scales at which things can/should work in a networked economy.

It's totally understandable. But still sad. And it suggests a very risky future for NPR.

Re: On the death of BPP

John Proffitt — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:07:29 -0000

@Anthony, thanks for the comment. I do think Thomas' departure was a blow to the operation. She "got it." Kernis I know less about, though he's the upper-level exec that went from NPR to CNN, so I'm already not impressed (zing!). Okay, snarky, but still... CNN? Really?

Anyway... I think you've hit the nail on the head for me when it came to BPP -- a program I liked in concept up it just didn't take off for me, mostly because it had that herky-jerky feel of being at NPR, but not being at NPR. It felt so separate and new, yet there were these elements that would pop up that made it feel like the old. It was awkward.

That said, all that could have been worked out in time, especially if producers/managers recognized the differences between being a radio program and a community web program.

I think a good example of what the BPP could have become was something like Buzz Out Loud, the daily tech news podcast from C|NET (now part of CBS). That's a show that lives on the web, on phones, on Skype, in a studio, in online forums, on video, on the road and so on but has a daily audio podcast with tons of committed listeners. While the style of Buzz Out Loud would not have been appropriate for BPP, the overall approach would make more sense.

Anyway, I hope NPR changes course here before it's too late. And I think Paterson is right that if this is the way NPR decisions will be made going forward, then the beginning of the end is here. The platform will decline as the audience ages and dies, and resources will be aligned for self protection, not necessarily public service.

Re: More BPP and innovation thinking

John Proffitt — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:47:04 -0000

Stephen,

I was wondering if you'd see this post and the reference to you. ;-)

As for heading to DC, I have to admit I don't have a bank account that would let me go paycheckless while developing a new company from scratch, even with energetic and hyper-intelligent partners from NPR or elsewhere.

Starting a blog is basically free (except for my time) and sustainable. But starting a whole new media company in one of the nation's most expensive cities is not something I think I could pull off. It's something I'd happily join, though (if it were funded).

I hate to get all generational, but I think the Boomer executives calling the shots at the CPB and NPR and PBS are square in the Innovator's Delimma situation. They can't change themselves without endangering their own paychecks and, let's face it, pretty comfortable lifestyles.

The "hippies" that really kicked off pubcasting in the 1970s are now long gone, either via retirement or co-option in the corporate system that grew out of the guerrilla movement they founded. Or they moved to Pacifica where the fight against corporate hegemony theoretically lives on.

Maybe the new movement should indeed start as a cheap web property?

Re: iPhone 3G sold out… Bad news music radio!

John Proffitt — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:13:00 -0000

I clarified my comments about music radio stations a bit over at the Scanning the Dial web site, a site focused on classical music stations and services around the country.

In short, I think the Pandora service is less disruptive to a good human-hosted classical service than to almost any other music category. I offer a few reasons over at Scanning the Dial.

Re: Haarsager on BPP, plus reactions

John Proffitt — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:53:30 -0000

And This American Life has solicited money for the cost of podcasting, too. But those are far enough outside the NPR core family to be safe to do this, and the solicitations are targeted at the users of the new tech.

PRI and APM definitely have less leverage on the stations and vice-versa. It's much more like a buyer/seller relationship. That's why when Faith Salie's show ("Fair Game") was canceled, there wasn't so much of a stink about it. PRI made the show, let it run, tried to sell it, but couldn't.

But APM's and PRI's ability to lead change in the broader public radio market is limited. They don't have the "tent pole" shows like Morning Edition or All Things Considered, where the bulk of the audience is located. "Marketplace" is probably one of the biggest non-NPR shows in terms of carriage, but that's still a small show compared to ME or ATC.

Your image of the umbilical cord is a good one -- someone has to cut this cord, and it's either got to be NPR or the stations. But both parties are addicted to the money and can't change easily without risking, well... everything.

At my station, we're attempting to devise a transitional middle path, one that reduces the dependence on NPR (and PBS) but doesn't break the bonds entirely. We're definitely counting on retaining the core properties like ME and ATC .

The real trick is building community and doing it online. Yet online works on different economic scales, so the legacy infrastructure is too heavy a burden for the new media stuff to bear. It's a tough nut to crack.

I think the stations and NPR could find a way forward in a new kind of relationship, but it would take vision on a massive scale that only a Jim Jones could produce, and I don't see enough stations drinking that Kool Aid anytime soon. NPR's "New Realities" meeting series a couple years ago was positive, but didn't generate any lasting structural change.

Re: Haarsager on BPP, plus reactions

John Proffitt — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:52:52 -0000

Thanks Ken. It's a serious problem we're all sharing. So far, I've not thought of a way forward that everyone would find palatable. It could be there isn't a way forward without a revolution.

In the mean time, I'd love to hear more about your social media event. Will you be writing more about it on the ConverStation blog (I saw the one post)? I'd like to do the same thing up here in Anchorage but would like to learn from others' experiences first, if possible.

Re: Haarsager on BPP, plus reactions

John Proffitt — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:04:13 -0000

Thanks again, Ken! I checked out the post. Really great stuff. It sounds like you all covered a tremendous amount of ground in your discussions -- how the system works (or doesn't) and issues of mission and so on.

Here's a direct link for anyone out there that's interested in this particular post...

http://tinyurl.com/6rcckt

Re: DTV Conversion: 199 and counting

John Proffitt — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:18:27 -0000

@bonita -- I hope more follow your example. It would strengthen traditional broadcasters, especially pubTV, because off-air you have fewer choices and we're one of them! ;-)

@Johnny -- I like hulu as well. I watch A LOT of hulu these days. I actually watch very little TV via cable or otherwise. Perhaps if I got a DVR (e.g. a TiVo) I might watch more actual broadcast television.

Re: DTV Conversion: 199 and counting

John Proffitt — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:46:17 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Steve. One of the things that concerns me, however, is the weakness of DTV signals (compared to the analog forebears) and the increased directionality of them. Plus, over the past 20-30 years most consumers have gotten away from fiddling with antennas and all that, opting for the simpler cable hookup.

I think people in the largest cities with the highest concentrations of DTV transmitters will have a grand old time. Here in Anchorage, not so much. Or am I wrong?

Re: C-130 trip photos posted

John Proffitt — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:16:15 -0000

In truth, Scott, I talked about you with Duncan, our news director, while we were on the trip. I wished you were there in my place. But this thing came up in 24 hours (for me, anyway) and I didn't think of you until it was too late.

If this type of trip comes up again and there's video potential, my intent is to call you up and see if we can send you as a pseudo-reporter of ours, then we can share the video and the credit when it's done -- something like that so both parties win.

That said, you might have been frustrated by this trip -- the C-130 had very few windows (all pretty scratched up) and it was REALLY dark inside the plane. You may have dodged a really frustrating videography situation!

Seriously, though, it's time for us to talk about collaboration more seriously. The change has arrived.

Re: Not to be repetitive, but… NPR + PI = ?

John Proffitt — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:07:31 -0000

Todd, I agree there are possibilities here. I'm hopeful that NPR has a more concrete idea of which possibilities they want to pursue. But I remain surprised that an overarching notion of what to do with PI has not been broadly promoted or discussed. The purchase was a chance to generate a bit of splash and get attention for a new vision. (Are they waiting for the purchase to be completed at the end of this month?)

I'm decreasingly anxious, however. Partially because things are about to change where I'm working and I'll be totally distracted anyway. But mostly because I'm reassured by your comment here. You haven't said anything specific, but I'm getting a good read-between-the-lines sense that no one has provided before this. Thanks!

Re: A great apology

John Proffitt — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:25:00 -0000

Thanks Sam. I'm trying to keep perspective on things. But it's hard when 40 people you serve are suddenly cut off from a service they use every day and there's nothing you can do about it.

On the whole, Google Apps, especially for nonprofits, is a raging good deal and I've had a good experience so far.

One advantage to running your own mail server, however, is that you can choose down times, scheduling them in low-usage periods. This Gmail outage hit right in a high-usage period, which exacerbates the feeling of helplessness.

Anyway, I'm not abandoning Google Apps just yet!

Re: A great apology

John Proffitt — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:17:31 -0000

Scott, I'm still a little on edge about this Google thing, but I have to say that in the months I've been using it and the weeks all my coworkers have been using it, this was the only notable glitch. But if this kind of things becomes part of the service, I'm headed for a Mac OS X Server.

Re: The Big Announcement – Part 1

John Proffitt — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:12:43 -0000

Thanks Bonita! Marketing and communications functions fall into the Advancement unit. Not all functions in the company are shown on the graphic. The graphic was made for employees so that they would know where they fall into the new structure. We have no dedicated employees for marketing or communications work, so we didn't show that there.

Similarly, thinks like grant writing and management aren't listed. Formally, grant-writing belongs in the Advancement unit, but we don't have a grant writer today. In most cases, various department heads will actually write grant applications and funnel them through Advancement (and the CEO) for approval.

Re: The Big Announcement – Part 1

John Proffitt — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:16:42 -0000

Thanks Gary! And it's funny you mentioned culture. That was one of the first questions that came up at the meeting announcing the restructuring. We've had, well... let's say an "unfortunate" culture for a long time, mostly stemming from the strategic gridlock and the sense of helplessness throughout the company. Two years ago we had a sizable layoff in the face of poor financial results and the mood has been dour ever since.

The fact that we had battling departments, all pulling in different directions, and a lack of a unified vision created undercurrents of animosity and distrust. It will take quite a while to turn things around, but one thing that gives me hope was the reaction on the first day -- people felt good about the change, in general (or at least that's what I saw and heard).

Now those of us on the new management team need to model the new culture, need to bring joy and fun back to the company.

Re: The Big Announcement – Part 1

John Proffitt — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:17:15 -0000

Thanks Javaun. I think I may get some sleep in December. REALLY looking forward to it! ;-)

Re: The Big Announcement – Part 1

John Proffitt — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:39:30 -0000

Thanks Ken. The hard part will be keeping a blog going in the midst of this, which is already apparent, I think.

Re: The Curse of the PBS Tchotchkes

John Proffitt — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:58:50 -0000

Greg -- The flash drives make a ton of sense to me. It's a way to get video (or audio) directly into the hands of programming decision-makers, and it's faster to see the video that way than to stream it online.

It's funny that you mention Deutsche Welle -- we were about to hire a reporter and she dropped us to take a 6-month gig with DW. Not fair! ;-)

What you're really up against is the 24x7 schedule and the fact that if you buy into the NPR and PRI deals, there's so much great content you literally can't air it all anyway. Plus there's the provincialism of programming (US vs. "foreign") and the fact that most stations have access to the BBC. You've got one tough job there.

So in some ways, it almost doesn't matter whether you can get me to listen to your programming in the first place. Even if I think it's good, I'd have to take something away that will upset someone and put on something "foreign" that will raise some questions for some listeners/viewers.

Plus, programming in U.S. public media seems to be selected in a "pack" mentality -- I'll run this or that because everyone else is. And experimentation these days, with budgets tight and fear of change running high, is a lost art. Most of the folks running public media in this country are in the late stages of their careers and are trying to safely coast to retirement. You won't get far with that kind of demographic.

For me personally (and I can't speak for other PDs because I'm new to the game and don't know those folks terribly well), here are some things that could get my attention:

1. You commenting on my blog! Sounds like a joke, but it's not. We've just made a personal connection using a communication channel I care about. That's meaningful. Now if a DW flash drive or DVD or whatever shows up, and it's from you, I'll pay more attention, I'll give it real thought. Other programs or distributors won't get the time of day from me. So you've broken through with me. I'm unusual in that respect, but still -- catching people on Facebook or through their web sites might work, if the contact is genuine, human-scaled, and not setup as a sales contact.

2. The flash drive idea would catch my interest, right off. That is, however, assuming that you're in the minority, not the majority. If my mailbox starts filling up with flash drives, then you're one of the many and I may not pay much attention. For now, the flash drive would get my attention, even not knowing you.

3. Here's a tough one... Somehow get your content in front of PDs at a conference. Not through a vendor booth, however -- I generally avoid those. But if you or one of your "stars" ended up on a panel or gave a presentation that gave you a chance to share/showcase your content in a non-sales-pitch way, I'd pay attention then and might look into your content later. Getting onto the conference docket could be tough. And you won't be seen by everyone there. But with a few influential trend-setting stations in the industry, you might just get somewhere.

I'm sure there are other ideas, too. But I gotta tell ya, #1 is my first choice. It's hard to find ways to connect with people, in general, but if you can, that's where it really begins. Indeed, I'm going to head out to the web after leaving this comment to look for DW's stuff.

Re: Long time, no see

John Proffitt — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:17:30 -0000

John -- Sorry, but I have to agree with you. ;-) Really, I *am* sorry!

I think you're sadly on the money. Public radio -- and public TV even more so -- is helmed by the generation that created it in the wake of the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. They did a great job. But the business models and public service models that we've used for the past 40 years are now falling apart.

Based on the work we've been doing in Alaska over the last several days, I'm more convinced than ever that only the richest stations in the largest markets *might* survive, just based on their ability to raise tons of cash to innovate while maintaining the old model, too. Mid-level and low-level stations are likely doomed.

But what can rise in place of the old model stations is a new way of engaging audiences across multiple platforms and even in person. I'm not saying it correctly here, though. There's more to be said, more to be explored. We're just wrapping up the opening phases of our thinking right now.

But I'm beginning to see a new future now, one that offers great opportunity. For those that can change.

Re: Recent presentations

John Proffitt — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:48:29 -0000

Jonathan -- Feel free to shamelessly rip off anything you find useful. Truth is, the presentation could be a lot better, but I didn't have much time to prep it. I would also recommend searching the web for other presentations and even some videos that may help.

And whenever you do make a presentation on Twitter, I'd love to hear about it / see the results.

Re: WiMAX vs. Cable Modem in Anchorage

John Proffitt — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:05:40 -0000

WiMAX, as a technology, can be made available in a mobile package. This particular install, however, is pretty much a non-mobile setup. Yes, you can pick up the modem and AC adapter and cart it around town, but it's not intended to be mobile.

Re: The letter I didn’t send

John Proffitt — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:24:58 -0000

@Andrew - I'll have to post some of the phone calls we get. Yowza!

Sadly, the most negative calls and e-mails we get are from non-members. I'd take it more seriously if it were from a regular contributor.

Re: The letter I didn’t send

John Proffitt — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:26:17 -0000

Thanks Nancy! It sure is a challenge to keep all these balls in the air. Definitely doesn't help to have people throw off your rhythm along the way. Not that this guy really did. But it sure feels like insult being added to injury sometimes.

Re: The letter I didn’t send

John Proffitt — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:29:30 -0000

@Jorge - Our reporters get some doozies from time to time, too. It's amazing to me how people can click send on their own screeching messages and wonder why we don't reply. And we get it ALL, too. The "you guys are just a bunch of commies" and the "you're in the pocket of corporate interests" themes are popular (and opposite). The insults to intelligence are regular.

I can't imagine the kinds of messages that flow into really big stations like KQED or WNYC or WGBH. Yikes!

Re: The letter I didn’t send

John Proffitt — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:35:47 -0000

@agenticecream You should have seen the first draft!

Re: Out of the mouths of (27 year old) babes

John Proffitt — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:42:31 -0000

Wow! Thanks for stopping by, Jesse!

You know, I was THIIIIIIS close to adding your show to the schedule in Anchorage, but the budget was too strapped and our listeners and staff were... well... a little too uptight to handle it. I know, I know... triple-pleated khakis... ;-)

Since I'm no longer with the station, so I'll have no pull on schedule choices in the future.

And I was SO BUMMED when I heard you and the boys were going to IMA this year. I was supposed to go but had to cancel due to the DTV transition... that ended up not happening. I'll definitely add that session to the post above.

Have a great time with the MaxFunCon!

Re: Alaska public media falling apart

John Proffitt — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:34:06 -0000

Public media in the state, our state government -- both seem to lack guiding strategies.

I think businesses and other groups can do fairly well without such strategic thinking, if the world is predictable and doesn't change much. Inertia, while not a strategy, has its charms. But when the bad times come or the world around you changes, knowing who you are and why you're here makes all the difference. It may not "save" you, but it gives you a chance.

In public media, NPR is the best example of a company on a mission, and they have a few strategies in play to achieve that mission. PBS, on the other hand, is a study in mission and strategy drift (sorry PBS, but it's true!). PBS is ultimately doomed unless they can get enough free money (government funding) to sustain the old mission and model.

Anyway, thanks for the comment! I hasn't thought about the Legislature! ;-)

Re: Alaska public media falling apart

John Proffitt — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:12:22 -0000

If I remember correctly, the DTV issues KUAC has were driven by several technical factors, not all of which were in the station's control. I suspect they'll fix it eventually, but with tha cash troubles, I wonder how soon.

Re: Alaska public media falling apart

John Proffitt — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:14:31 -0000

Rob, we were SO fortunate to have had some of your time. Your valiant efforts to help were deeply appreciated. But if a Board and a GM don't want the advice to stick, it won't. Really, we shhould apologize to you for wasting your time.

Re: Alaska public media falling apart

John Proffitt — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:15:33 -0000

Ken, you are too kind. I don't really think of myself as a "visionary." More like a person that's paying attention. No different than you.

Well, there is ONE difference... You're in a more enlightened organization! WBUR is now and has been doing some great stuff. I'm a huge fan of The ConverStation, in no small part because I want to steal the blog name!

Keep doing that great work you do. Maybe someday I will once again be a public media colleague. There are certainly pockets of fantastic innovation out there. Something good will come from all of this, I'm sure.

Re: Alaska public media falling apart

John Proffitt — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:26:30 -0000

Well, thank you CJ -- a wonderful compliment (your check is in the mail - ha!). I'd like to write more, and perhaps I will, but I find myself drifting away, since I'm not in the thick of it every day right now. I worry for public media -- there's such a need, such an unrealized demand for a quality, trustworthy public service like it.

I've met so many people in public media, across the country, that are innovative, hard-working and smart as whips but their creativity suffers in organizations stuck, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not, in the old ways of thinking. They stick with the comfortable and the familiar. They're unwilling to risk outright failure or admit weaknesses to the public, to their supporters. Outreach is so often limited to asking for money, and on public TV, it's almost always via "lite" informercials and new age booksellers.

It's ironic, really. We stand at the edge of a new world, yet so many in public media (and private, too) are desperately trying to make this new world feel like the old world. We're fighting the flow of history.

History typically wins. I hope some pubmedia leaders switch sides before it's too late.