Comments on: NPR cancel Bryant Park Project - Can a hybrid work?

By: Edo River

Edo River — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:39:00 +0000

I thought it was young sounding, up tempo, and the kind of stuff I wanted to listen to when I wanted to listen to it. I felt engaged to the personalities I heard through streaming, and I read the blog site presence from time to time. In short I thought it was being a success at what it was trying to accomplsh. I dont worry about costs and hybrid this and that. I was attracted to the personality presentation of the content, tempo, and community on the site. IF there was something I wasnt interested in, it changed after a few minutes and went on, or I focused on what I was doing until the next topic.

Now that its gone, I want to find something as good in the same time slot.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:54:50 +0000

The problem with BPP is that, as radio, it imitated all the other crap on morning tv and radio. A bunch of giggling, talking heads is really not very high quality. This is the wrong product to offer to the NPR audience. Public radio is generally very intelligent. Although BPP had high quality talent and some excellent journalism, the format itself was suited more to MTV or IMUS than to the more thoughtful NPR network.

By: Elia Surran

Elia Surran — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:41:28 +0000

The BPP was a great experiment and I can’t help but wonder if NPR was really serious about engaging a younger, more diverse demographic…I think they are giving up too easily. I happened to find the show on satellite radio and loved the concept from the start. I am a loyal listener half the time in the car and the other half streaming it at the office. I loved to be able to go back and listen to the show on my schedule. I am amazed that NPR did not reach out to the web giants of Google and/or Yahoo for sponsorship, since this was a great blend of media… NPR will regret this move, because someone else is going to make this happen and NPR would have lost it’s edge. I have been listening to NPR for almost 20 years. I look around to the young people I work with and I could see them interested in NPR because of this show…

By: Steve Thompson

Steve Thompson — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:43:05 +0000

Very thoughtful post and comments. I’m very sad and angry.

How does the money appear in a web-based model? Who pays the staff salaries? Do you think a trickle of donations would be sufficient? Or do you suppose a corporate entity (like NPR) still has to be in the background somehow?

I think a tough thing would be to make a staffed show tap-dance every day for its money.

If Ira Glass had to, he could sit in his living room and do voice-overs, while hungry writers produce their spots (kind of a magazine model). The writers/producers would be the tap-dancers. But the BPP is news-gathering, more a newspaper model, which implies a dedicated staff. Sounds expensive any way you look at it, no?

I return to sulking.

By: Glenn Wonacott

Glenn Wonacott — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:50:46 +0000

Thanks Rob,
The need for a new funding-hybrid-model IS all important. I am one of those who are e-mailing, commenting, contacting, etc. to help save BPP in some form. My last effort goes out tomorrow - snail-mail to NPR CEO and Executives, etc., cc’d to The New York Times.
My main point in the letter will be to encourage vision - to adopt - quickly - this newer web-based model. The show, and by extension NPR, are showing rare creativity; I haven’t seen this kind of community from MTV, VHS-1, Rolling Stone, other “youth-oriented” media. Yet, here it is at NPR. They just need to catch the wave and hang on.
Or, as you say, perhaps BPP will go independent and viral.

By: G

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:53:17 +0000

Great post.

NPR did a great job at doing things half way. They (BPP specifically) built a great hybrid show, but relied on traditional funding methods. I have little doubt that BPP fans could have at least partially supported the show to keep it on the air.

I think that the BPP has a chance to make it on it’s own, without the NPR backing, if they switched to the model you suggested. Website, blog, twitter, and facebook focus, with some radio mixed in. Add some advertisers, a voluntary donation, and they may have the recipe to make it on their own.

By: Chris Yeh

Chris Yeh — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:47:15 +0000

Fantastic analogy.

You can carry it a step further–while some may argue that shifting to dreadnaughts is a waste of money, and that simply being the first to bring out a dreadnaught failed to give the Royal Navy supremacy over the seas, the fact is that if your competition is building dreadnaughts and you’re still building ships-of-line, the next war is going to be over pretty quickly for your navy.

By: Loretta Donovan

Loretta Donovan — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:55:28 +0000

Brilliant analogy w/ real and imagined transitions in naval architecture. As many times over the 15 year life of the web, its use has been misconstrued as an adjunct to or simulation of known models of communication and education - I’ve wanted to shout from the virtual and visible rooftops “this is a another, different band of the visible and audible”. Ah well, at least a few of us get it.