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 efficiency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label efficiency. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
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)
