The FASTForward Blog » Time for Public Media to think about building a web distribution alternative: Enterprise 2.0 Blog: News, Coverage, and Commentary

Time for Public Media to think about building a web distribution alternative

by Rob Paterson

September 1, 2009 at 9:26 am · Filed under PBS, Public Media, Public Radio, Public TV, Web 2.0

The largest costs for newspapers is of course the paper itself – the paper, the printing and the distribution PLUS all the entrenched union issues. Many are advocating that the only way the “Papers” will make it will be to drop the paper or at least most of the paper as say the Christian Science Monitor has done.

So here is my heresy for the day – maybe this is what Pub radio and TV needs to consider – dropping the reliance on the Air or Cable!

Before you think I am mad, here are three bits of news that you can knit together into a pattern to support this view.

KCRW – is now going global and is offering a a 24/7 web based radio show – a Curated site! It starts Labor Day! They have the brand and they have the beginnings. of a global audience
“Santa Monica-based public radio station KCRW today announced the launch of Electic24, a new Web-based music station that promises to “encompass the whole scope of the public radio station’s musical footprint over the last 30 years.” The station will run 24 hours a day and feature picks from the station’s music library, selection of live in-studio performances, and interviews.

The station, curated by KCRW music director Chris Douridas, is set to premier on Labor Day at 9 AM PST. After launch, users can access the stream by visiting KCRW’s site.”
KCET is covering the big fire in CA – its transmitter is at risk so it is going full tilt to offers news to its LOCAL audience via the web. (The Current) Back in the day KPBS lost its transmitter during the San Diego fire and had to use one donated by another station. The point here is that everybody in California can access the site via the web

There are signs that the cable companies have it in for Public TV and are pulling Pub TV channels off the offering – far be it for me to wonder why (maybe pub TV tells the truth?) but there is no doubt that this is a trend and with the shift to digital – Pub TV is vulnerable.

(NYT)“Cable television systems across the country, wielding their new power to pick and choose the programs they carry, are dropping public television stations or switching them to less desirable positions on the cable dial.

Public television officials, who have been protesting this trend, assert that some three million viewers have been lost as a result of the cable-system actions, which have involved more than 200 stations. They also contend that the loss of audience has damaged the fund-raising efforts of the stations. The protests have in some instances spurred cable companies to reverse their decisions.”

Part of the key to the future for pub media is not to get web revenue to match their old Air revenue – that. is the same faint hope that newspapers had. It is surely to transform their costs. Air – like print – is the killer cost.

“Oh we could never do that” – but that is what the news papers are saying. As we can see above there are signs!

There are a number of other events that can help.

Nearly all the best programs on the PBS system will be available on the web as of next week. NPR has its API and its Mobile platform

Why not take a few stations as an experiment and put as much of the schedule on the web locally as possible and see what happens. The components are there both in terms of content and distribution.

Plus the audience is there – video online is well past the Tipping Point.

Try it – please

Share and Enjoy:

Permalink

5 Tweets

8 Comments »

Preston WrightSeptember 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 am

Rob,

Your argument only makes sense if you think that AIR is expensive and Web is cheap, but you have it backwards. The AIR is much cheaper.

Public Media doesn’t create individual units like newspapers do, a paper being delivered to every home. Public radio or TV makes one unit — a signal that everyone can grab. That signal may be initially expensive, but then hundreds of thousands of people consume the same item. The cost per person is very low.

The cost per person of streaming on the Web is much higher. Stations must pay per bandwidth used. It becomes the newspaper model of delivering mesured packets to each home — more consumers, higher cost.

So while people who enjoy watching technology may see air broadcast as a dinosaur, it is actually the better revenue model.

The other piece that you don’t understand is that public media is not tied to the same single channel of income as the newspapers. Newspapers have advertising and that’s it. Public Media has several sources of revenue — members, sponsors, grants, endowments. All of these have a tax incentives for the groups doing the giving. Changing from AIR to Web-only doesn’t change any of this, but it does raise the costs.

Robert PatersonSeptember 3rd, 2009 at 6:22 am

Good points – let me do my best to reply – In essence I see the web as being more than simply an alternative distribution channel – I see it as offering us a way to have a deeper, broader and more committed relationship with those that we serve – that we shift from what is basically a transactional relationship to a personal one

* Public Media makes its money by “selling” content to a listening/viewing audience – all the flows of money are based on ONE thing that there is content on air and that there are a set segment of people who use it during the schedule. The station is tied to a limited piece of real estate – the point on the dial, the slot n cable and the time on the clock. So is the “audience” The audience is limited by choice on the dial – it tends to be mainly white middle class and over 40 for radio and over 50 for TV. With the limits of the “appointment”, you cannot shift this – who will take off Morning Edition and put on Bryant Park as a replacement. Why would say in Canada the mainstream audience listen to a show on Native Canadians? Why would Native Canadians tune in just for one show If you strip it down – this is the essence of “Air”. We are trapped in time and in space and the frame of our content limits us to a narrow part of the public.

* Just as the content that we could rely on being unique and only available from us is going to be no longer scarce. Content – no matter how good is moving to a supply that is infinite on the web

* Whether we like it or not – the audience is also decisively going online – news and even video has crossed the Rubicon

* With a web delivery we shift all of these dynamics – this is not only about streaming the current schedule! It is about supplying a myriad of communities with context, content and a place for community and exchange. Where there is No Limit to time and space and to frame. Where the connection shifts beyond the transactional – where the public can be part of us and we part of them.

* As a consequence, as we are seeing in the FTMC project, we can reach segments of the population that will never watch or listen to our current on air offering- we reach them at first by helping them – then we can set up web channels that serve them and we can alter our content mix and add their own – all that is required is “Curation” as KCRW will be doing for music to give them a fit.

* As we become involved in strengthening the place that we live in – at the moment helping people keep their homes – maybe later reinventing the economy – Local Food, Health etc – our connection transcends the transaction and becomes part of the identity of the partner – we become Vital to our communities rather than merely good to have around.

Visual Site MonitorSeptember 21st, 2009 at 9:49 pm

Nice try, however the print papers simply need to consolidate, here in Detroit we have seen several papers consolidate. The result is less choice but a more stable news paper.

ffblogSeptember 1st, 2009 at 9:26 am

New Post “Time for Public Media to think about build a web distribution alternative” http://bit.ly/3WEdaD