Could The Weather Channel's Local on the 8s feature inform a PBS strategy for delivering local content? In a universal broadband world, this could work. Any problem-solving traffic pros want to chime in regarding the technical issues/solutions? What are the programming issues? Perhaps more common carriage, but easier promotion. Plus, who doesn't love light jazz?
We have our own ideas, but we'd like to hear yours.
Showing posts with label PBS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PBS. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
The Lonely Island
Over the last couple of days, we've received excellent comments from John Proffitt, David Thiel and Colin Powers. Thank you all for your engagement. We welcome readers to see them below.
We will try to address some of the concerns, though too many worthwhile questions have been raised to tackle all of them in one post. In this post, we will try to expand our vision for local "offices" as opposed to stations and explain why this change should occur.
David writes:
RevolutionPBS agrees with this philosophy, but we break with the current PBS model in our vision for local presence. We believe in a model we will call The Lonely Island.
Last night we watched Saturday Night Live's retrospective on the decade of 2000-10. In the show, cast member Andy Samberg recounted the production of the short film "Lazy Sunday." For those unfamiliar, "Lazy Sunday" is a rap video about a day in the life of two guys who go see The Chronicles of Narnia. The project was created by Andy and two writer friends (Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone). Though they were all employed by NBC, the three of them had been making short films on their own since high school, calling their "production unit" The Lonely Island. "Lazy Sunday" was the first film idea they submitted to Lorne Michaels.
Based on an audio track created on a Macbook, Lorne greenlighted the project. The Lonely Island team shot the footage around Brooklyn and in the theater of improv group The Upright Citizens Brigade. The shoot took five hours. When "Lazy Sunday" aired that weekend it was a huge success, and the film became an overnight YouTube smash.
What can PBS learn from this example? We believe smaller production offices, or "Lonely Islands," can be leaner than, but just as successful as, local stations. They can use less expensive technology (Macbook audio). They can partner to achieve efficiency (use the Upright Citizens Brigade theater). They can innovate (no mainstream television outlet was taking YouTube-style video seriously before "Lazy Sunday").
The Lonely Island group has gone on to make numerous popular films for SNL. Certainly, with their success, SNL is throwing more money their way for production costs (could this be an increase in CPB support in the PBS model?). The group has explored other ways to engage its audience with a CD of its songs called Incredibad (local PBS production units could still pursue grants for educational outreach based on their own and PBS programs). But even with all their success, NBC wouldn't consider building The Lonely Island team their own studios, master control, and soundstage.
We believe PBS can have the innovation without the inefficiency of the member station model. With advances in technology it will only become easier and less expensive to produce and deliver content. Cloud computing, the National Broadband Plan and easier web distribution, exploding receiving devices for content...the only way through these changes is to be smaller and more agile.
In another part of his comment David mentions boots on the ground. This should always be a vital part of public media. A public media unit must be embedded in its community. It must be fluent in its history and culture. We believe local production units can establish the same presence in a community without the station infrastructure. We argue smaller units can be even more responsive to their community's needs without the worry of studio, transmitter, and master control overhead.
Viewing the situation from 30,000 feet, PBS real estate is shrinking, as is the footprint of many established media organizations (networks and newspapers being two of the most obvious examples), as media choice expands exponentially and distribution changes. To deny the fragmentation and shifting patterns of its audience would be as perilous for PBS as for any other media provider. RevPBS isn't breaking any new ground here. Anyone familiar with Media Theory knows this.
We believe PBS must put resources toward its brand, not its real estate. While brand may not be a favorite focus of a service organization, it is a vital focus for a media organization. What sets PBS apart is its storytelling, its reporting, quality educational programs, its level of trust among viewers...in short, its content.
A brief aside about PBS and brand. If you go to The Lonely Island website, you recognize the group's connection to SNL and to a lesser degree NBC. Go to the Sesame Workshop website and look for references to PBS or Sprout. They aren't exactly front and center. This is a problem. Could Sesame Street realize there will come a day when they will no longer need PBS to deliver their content? Any of you who scoff are in for a rude awakening.
Our proposed change might take some careful steps to educate viewers. It would be nice for them to understand how the new model would work. It would be nice for communities to have a better understanding of the engagement these offices will provide. But let's be honest, is this critical? RevPBS knows enough about member stations to know that many viewers don't understand the role their local station plays in distributing content, programming the schedule, teaching literacy, providing health care outreach. After hours of pledge pitches and mailbags full of direct mail efforts, member stations would like to think they have communicated these things, but the truth is too few people understand PBS's full value, a value that wouldn't be diminished with a new model.
This is not a call for all member stations to fold tomorrow, but shifting as many resources as possible to engaging communities and producing stellar content should be the goal of everyone in the system. We can argue about when the time will come, but there can be little doubt that the on demand world will make local transmissions and local programming decisions redundant and irrelevant. People will be using devices that receive the content they want, when they want it. The infrastructure will be obsolete, but the content will be more vital than ever.
We will try to address some of the concerns, though too many worthwhile questions have been raised to tackle all of them in one post. In this post, we will try to expand our vision for local "offices" as opposed to stations and explain why this change should occur.
David writes:
While I know that many see the network of local stations as a problem, I've always seen it as a net positive. That so-called inefficiency is also a breeding ground for innovation, with the best ideas getting passed around.
RevolutionPBS agrees with this philosophy, but we break with the current PBS model in our vision for local presence. We believe in a model we will call The Lonely Island.
Last night we watched Saturday Night Live's retrospective on the decade of 2000-10. In the show, cast member Andy Samberg recounted the production of the short film "Lazy Sunday." For those unfamiliar, "Lazy Sunday" is a rap video about a day in the life of two guys who go see The Chronicles of Narnia. The project was created by Andy and two writer friends (Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone). Though they were all employed by NBC, the three of them had been making short films on their own since high school, calling their "production unit" The Lonely Island. "Lazy Sunday" was the first film idea they submitted to Lorne Michaels.
Based on an audio track created on a Macbook, Lorne greenlighted the project. The Lonely Island team shot the footage around Brooklyn and in the theater of improv group The Upright Citizens Brigade. The shoot took five hours. When "Lazy Sunday" aired that weekend it was a huge success, and the film became an overnight YouTube smash.
What can PBS learn from this example? We believe smaller production offices, or "Lonely Islands," can be leaner than, but just as successful as, local stations. They can use less expensive technology (Macbook audio). They can partner to achieve efficiency (use the Upright Citizens Brigade theater). They can innovate (no mainstream television outlet was taking YouTube-style video seriously before "Lazy Sunday").
The Lonely Island group has gone on to make numerous popular films for SNL. Certainly, with their success, SNL is throwing more money their way for production costs (could this be an increase in CPB support in the PBS model?). The group has explored other ways to engage its audience with a CD of its songs called Incredibad (local PBS production units could still pursue grants for educational outreach based on their own and PBS programs). But even with all their success, NBC wouldn't consider building The Lonely Island team their own studios, master control, and soundstage.
We believe PBS can have the innovation without the inefficiency of the member station model. With advances in technology it will only become easier and less expensive to produce and deliver content. Cloud computing, the National Broadband Plan and easier web distribution, exploding receiving devices for content...the only way through these changes is to be smaller and more agile.
In another part of his comment David mentions boots on the ground. This should always be a vital part of public media. A public media unit must be embedded in its community. It must be fluent in its history and culture. We believe local production units can establish the same presence in a community without the station infrastructure. We argue smaller units can be even more responsive to their community's needs without the worry of studio, transmitter, and master control overhead.
Viewing the situation from 30,000 feet, PBS real estate is shrinking, as is the footprint of many established media organizations (networks and newspapers being two of the most obvious examples), as media choice expands exponentially and distribution changes. To deny the fragmentation and shifting patterns of its audience would be as perilous for PBS as for any other media provider. RevPBS isn't breaking any new ground here. Anyone familiar with Media Theory knows this.
We believe PBS must put resources toward its brand, not its real estate. While brand may not be a favorite focus of a service organization, it is a vital focus for a media organization. What sets PBS apart is its storytelling, its reporting, quality educational programs, its level of trust among viewers...in short, its content.
A brief aside about PBS and brand. If you go to The Lonely Island website, you recognize the group's connection to SNL and to a lesser degree NBC. Go to the Sesame Workshop website and look for references to PBS or Sprout. They aren't exactly front and center. This is a problem. Could Sesame Street realize there will come a day when they will no longer need PBS to deliver their content? Any of you who scoff are in for a rude awakening.
Our proposed change might take some careful steps to educate viewers. It would be nice for them to understand how the new model would work. It would be nice for communities to have a better understanding of the engagement these offices will provide. But let's be honest, is this critical? RevPBS knows enough about member stations to know that many viewers don't understand the role their local station plays in distributing content, programming the schedule, teaching literacy, providing health care outreach. After hours of pledge pitches and mailbags full of direct mail efforts, member stations would like to think they have communicated these things, but the truth is too few people understand PBS's full value, a value that wouldn't be diminished with a new model.
This is not a call for all member stations to fold tomorrow, but shifting as many resources as possible to engaging communities and producing stellar content should be the goal of everyone in the system. We can argue about when the time will come, but there can be little doubt that the on demand world will make local transmissions and local programming decisions redundant and irrelevant. People will be using devices that receive the content they want, when they want it. The infrastructure will be obsolete, but the content will be more vital than ever.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
NPR Is On Your iPad
That's right. It's Robert Siegel, in app form. What about some video with that radio star? Why that might look like PBS, distributed in a whole new way....
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125471632
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125471632
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
More Than TV
Check out this NYT article. You can watch PBS on Facebook. No remote control needed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/business/media/15pbs.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/business/media/15pbs.html
Efficiency Idea 1
In our quest to identify ways that PBS can cut costs, we will offer regular "Efficiency Idea" posts. Today's deals with distribution.
The Pony Express was a private endeavor founded just over 150 years ago to allow expedited communication with the West. At its height, the Pony Express had over 100 stations (by some counts as many as 157), 80 riders, and between 400-500 horses. The completion of the Pacific Telegraph line on October 24, 1861 rendered the Pony Express obsolete, and it closed after a little more than 19 months of operation. Though the Pony Express served a vital need, its three founders closed the business without ever achieving financial success. Upon closing the business, the partners filed for bankruptcy.
http://www.ponyexpress.org/index.php?page=History
Imagine the US government decided to take over the Pony Express after the completion of the Pacific Telegraph line. We need the Pony Express, they would argue, to make sure the West can receive high quality information (handwritten letters) that telegraph communication just can't offer. They would spend money keeping up the stations, paying the riders, and caring for the horses. Wouldn't that be a waste of money?
Certainly, the above example is not a spot on analogy for PBS's member station model (no one on horseback is showing up in your living room with a DVD of Antiques Roadshow), but PBS does spend money to keep up an antiquated system. Why are we helping to fund local stations so that they can broadcast content when there are much more efficient ways to deliver television programs? Why have tax-payers helped pay for digital upgrades to these local stations? (The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is now accepting applications for a new round of grants of up to $750,000 for stations to upgrade their analog equipment.) Why do we put up with local stations soliciting pledges to help pay for bricks and mortar (not to mention expensive equipment and the salaries of those who operate it), when technology allows for more efficient transmission?
Leaving aside for today the argument that local stations are needed for local control (don't worry, we're coming back to that one), why can't PBS deliver its signal in the same way TBS or any of the other cable/satellite channels do? The cable/satellite companies can pay for the distribution. PBS can spend its money on content, the most important value they offer.
But what are we to do about those people who can't afford cable and need PBS's educational programming most? (We will also return to this subject when we can more fully explore who really uses PBS and how they get their content.) In some markets, PBS stations already share towers with local network affiliates. Why not just send these local network stations the feed and let them operate the channel for those who wish to continue watching television with good, old-fashioned rabbit ears? The local affiliates would be happy to have the steady revenue which could be negotiated at a fraction of what it costs to run a member station.
Just like the USPS contracts with commercial airlines to carry mail rather than pay for its own fleet of planes, PBS should go into business with local affiliates and cable/satellite providers.
For more information, stay "tuned" to RevolutionPBS. And don't forget to follow us on Twitter.
Your PBS Revolutionaries
The Pony Express was a private endeavor founded just over 150 years ago to allow expedited communication with the West. At its height, the Pony Express had over 100 stations (by some counts as many as 157), 80 riders, and between 400-500 horses. The completion of the Pacific Telegraph line on October 24, 1861 rendered the Pony Express obsolete, and it closed after a little more than 19 months of operation. Though the Pony Express served a vital need, its three founders closed the business without ever achieving financial success. Upon closing the business, the partners filed for bankruptcy.
http://www.ponyexpress.org/index.php?page=History
Imagine the US government decided to take over the Pony Express after the completion of the Pacific Telegraph line. We need the Pony Express, they would argue, to make sure the West can receive high quality information (handwritten letters) that telegraph communication just can't offer. They would spend money keeping up the stations, paying the riders, and caring for the horses. Wouldn't that be a waste of money?
Certainly, the above example is not a spot on analogy for PBS's member station model (no one on horseback is showing up in your living room with a DVD of Antiques Roadshow), but PBS does spend money to keep up an antiquated system. Why are we helping to fund local stations so that they can broadcast content when there are much more efficient ways to deliver television programs? Why have tax-payers helped pay for digital upgrades to these local stations? (The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is now accepting applications for a new round of grants of up to $750,000 for stations to upgrade their analog equipment.) Why do we put up with local stations soliciting pledges to help pay for bricks and mortar (not to mention expensive equipment and the salaries of those who operate it), when technology allows for more efficient transmission?
Leaving aside for today the argument that local stations are needed for local control (don't worry, we're coming back to that one), why can't PBS deliver its signal in the same way TBS or any of the other cable/satellite channels do? The cable/satellite companies can pay for the distribution. PBS can spend its money on content, the most important value they offer.
But what are we to do about those people who can't afford cable and need PBS's educational programming most? (We will also return to this subject when we can more fully explore who really uses PBS and how they get their content.) In some markets, PBS stations already share towers with local network affiliates. Why not just send these local network stations the feed and let them operate the channel for those who wish to continue watching television with good, old-fashioned rabbit ears? The local affiliates would be happy to have the steady revenue which could be negotiated at a fraction of what it costs to run a member station.
Just like the USPS contracts with commercial airlines to carry mail rather than pay for its own fleet of planes, PBS should go into business with local affiliates and cable/satellite providers.
For more information, stay "tuned" to RevolutionPBS. And don't forget to follow us on Twitter.
Your PBS Revolutionaries
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
