The Beauty of Netflix HD Streaming
(watching Food Inc btw)
(watching Food Inc btw)
We don't lead by kowtowing to the handwringers; nor do we lead by stating the obvious. We lead by asking our industry to think ahead.
I wrote this piece for the PRPD blog.
We've seen an interesting memo this week - an appeal from Wyoming Public Radio’s Jon Schwartz on behalf of stations faced with the potential of new platforms, but challenged by the lack of a clear strategy or business model to take advantage of the opportunity. Schwartz notes that even the largest stations aren't seeing much use of their online services, and they're certainly not making money from them. He appeals to NPR to help stations place the right bets so they can create online ventures that support themselves.
We at PRPD offer some thoughts - not as a response to Schwartz, per se - but a point of view about the important issues he raises.
The Internet is real. The opportunity for service isn't hype. Millions of public radio listeners are spending many hours every day online, consuming news, engaging with their friends on Facebook, listening to streaming audio and watching video.
Public media certainly has a long way to go, but many entities are already providing models of excellence and we're beginning to see the results. A recent NPR study finds listeners to Weekend Edition feel a much stronger connection to the program because of the opportunities they have to engage with it online. More than a million people follow NPR News on twitter; NPR's iPad app is well-designed and is one of the most downloaded apps for the device; the Public Radio Player has been downloaded more than two-million times; and WBUR has significantly increased the utility and value of its web site as the result of a recent redesign that was relatively inexpensive. In fact, Public Media Metrics reports an increase in online audiences generally, particularly for news station web sites.
This content we're delivering serves people, but doesn't make a profit and doesn't (yet) generate revenue to cover costs. Frankly, some digital efforts don’t cost money, either. But for the purposes of this discussion, let's focus on the stuff that does require money: web site redesign, a full-time staff (of one or more) for online service, and the daily creation and delivery of new and re-purposed content. Ads on the web site offer a new stream of revenue, but it - and other revenue streams - don't cover the full cost of the service.
The response we hear from many seems to imply the following: we can't move forward until it pays for itself. Or we won't increase our service until we have a strategy or we know it’ll break even.
Here's the hard truth: it isn't going to pay for itself - probably for awhile.
Here's another hard truth: since when has that stopped us from making an investment that we felt was important and justified?
Everyone references Jon McTaggart's statement from a couple years ago: that revenue is covering only around 30-40% of the expenses of MPR's online service. So why hasn't he eliminated the service? Why hasn't he cut back to the break-even point? I asked McTaggart, and his response merits a lengthy quote (the emphasis is mine):
We invest in digital platforms for one simple reason, our audience. Our slogan is "It's About the Audience" and that imperative applies to all media we use to serve them. Public media audiences are early adopters of new digital platforms and devices, and they expect to find our content on the screen or the device they favor. The shortest path to irrelevance is to ignore what our audiences are telling us, and our audiences are increasingly using digital media.
Given the piles of misinformation, raw opinion, strident commentary and polarizing personalities that litter the media landscape, public media has a responsibility to be a trusted, centering public service. We have developed that position for more than 40 years through our broadcasts, and we must prove that on our digital platforms.
A side note on the revenue question: McTaggart says, despite increasing its investment in digital, revenues now cover 85% of the expense of the regional MPR service. He adds, "We have not discovered or created a guaranteed digital revenue model. Rather, we are applying the same revenue principles, plans and disciplines to our digital audiences that we have developed with our broadcast audiences."
Prudent investment in digital services is not an option for public radio stations. Our listeners expect it. Increasing that investment thoughtfully over time isn't an option either. Stations need to add digital media to the list of priority activities, like the news department and the local talk show. And then stations need to make sure their budgets are aligned with that priority. Again, Jon McTaggart:
Few innovations immediately pay for themselves, at least not in the earliest stages. The reality for most media companies right now, commercial and public, is the necessity to trade some 'legacy' activities for the new services that are expected to create greater value for audiences. For most public radio stations, and in the current economy, that means stopping some services, even some radio activities, in order to invest in new digital programming.
Every station has different capabilities, and each manager will have to make hard choices, including ending some activities that have a lower priority.
Don't wait for NPR to ride to the rescue with The One True Strategy for local stations on the Internet. CPB, NPR and other entities are developing initiatives to increase local capacity - Local Journalism Centers, Argo, and The Platform among others. These are exciting and hold promise.
Strategies and practices are emerging, but strategies and best practices emerge as a result of doing. It's testing, experimenting and learning. It is risk and innovation and failure. How can you collaborate with other stations to create and gain efficiencies? How might you pool resources and talent? What are low-cost or no-cost ways to engage with your listeners on Facebook, for instance? And really work it, not just dabble. Are there a couple of things you could easily add to your web site that would make it more useful and essential to visitors beyond your broadcast footprint? Do your station’s services matter beyond the immediate horizon?
If you're waiting for a multiple platform strategy to be handed to you, you are in a position of unenviable weakness. If you think the effort is about ‘saving radio’ you are not paying attention to the biggest revolution in media in a few generations.
One is tempted to jump up and down and scream that the sky is falling. Well, the sky is still above and people are still listening, sometimes to the radio and sometimes to audio from anywhere. But do not make the mistake of assuming that our listener habits are static. If you assume that because millions of people listen to us on the radio, you can let multi-platform service slide into the future, you will pay a price: your credibility with your audience.
PRPD is a powerful forum for hashing out how we do better at serving and reaching audiences; how programming is more than shows on the radio. Excellence is more than great news coverage. It includes smart approaches to design, technology, revenue growth, and engagement. "Programming" is about how we touch, serve, and embrace audiences wherever they are.
We have to take bold steps forward if we want to fulfill the promise of serving our audience.
Yes, you've been waiting for the resolution to this longstanding issue. In case you missed it, US Ambassador David Jacobson delivered a case of Yuengling and 24 bottles of Molson Canadian to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Friday. This fulfills the bet between Obama and Harper over the results of the Olympic hockey game, which the Canadian team won, of course.
Alright, now you can go back to lesser stories like health care, etc.
Check out this video interview for a little of his story, including a wanderlust that stills carries him all over the planet.
About 10 years ago I was having my annual holiday party, and my niece had come with her newly minted M.B.A. boyfriend. As he looked around the room, he noted that my employees seemed happy. I told him that I thought they were.
Then, figuring I would take his new degree for a test drive, I asked him how he thought I did that. “I’m sure you treat them well,” he replied.
“That’s half of it,” I said. “Do you know what the other half is?”
He didn’t have the answer, and neither have the many other people that I have told this story. So what is the answer? I fired the unhappy people. People usually laugh at this point. I wish I were kidding.
I’m not. I have learned the long, hard and frustrating way that as a manager you cannot make everyone happy. You can try, you can listen, you can solve some problems, you can try some more. Good management requires training, counseling and patience, but there comes a point when you are robbing the business of precious time and energy.
Don’t get me wrong. This doesn’t happen a lot. There’s no joy in the act of firing someone. And it’s not always the employee’s fault — there are many bad bosses out there. Bad management can make a good employee dysfunctional. On the other hand, good management will not always make a dysfunctional employee good. And sometimes people who would be great employees somewhere else just don’t fit your company, whether it is the type of business or the company culture.
In the worst cases, the problem of a bad fit can have a bigger impact than just one employee’s performance. Being in charge does not necessarily mean you are in control, and being in control does not necessarily mean being in charge. Have you ever seen a company or department paralyzed by someone who is unhappy and wants to take hostages? It is remarkable how much damage one person can do. If you haven’t seen it, I suggest you watch “The Caine Mutiny.” Basically, one guy takes apart the ship. He was unhappy. It only takes one.
