Public Media 2007

I spoke on a panel Friday morning at Public Media 2007, the Interactive Media Association’s annual conference.  The conference brings together the folks from the public broadcasting (radio and TV) communities who are focused on interactive (read: online) communications.  While the public broadcasting community has been an innovator in many ways online, the conference was appropriately focused on figuring out how NPR, PBS, and all their member stations and partner groups could make the leap from being public broadcasters who have operations online to being leaders in the broader public media space, and leveraging technology to do that.

Here is a quick excerpt from the conference overview on what was driving this discussion:

For one thing, all media is taking a digital form and “public service publishing” has expanded dramatically–if you extend the definition of public media to any individual or organization creating and distributing media “in the public interest.”  Technical advances and innovations have eliminated barriers to entry. The cost of audio and video production has spiraled downward. Podcasting and media aggregation sites, where you don’t need a license to distribute audio and video, now reach millions of desktops and iPods.  With ubiquitous blogging software, everybody can be a journalist, a critic, a pundit at a cost of no more than $20 a month. 

The speed of this change has been nothing short of revolutionary.

I sat on a panel entitled “Leveraging Social Networks” which promised to answer the burning question: “How can public broadcasting stations can leverage social networks to increase engagement and build audience?”  The panel was moderated by Vinay Bhagat, the Founder and Chief Strategist of Convio and featured Dick McPherson, a consultant to the public broadcasting community, Heather Holdridge from Care2 and David Woodrow from Gather.com.

I was generally disappointed with how the conversation was framed.  The easy way to think about social networks is to look at the existing technologies in the field and figure out how to use them.  In other words, since MySpace has more than 50 million users, they must be a place we can go looking to engage our audience.  Or, since more than 65,000 videos are uploaded to YouTube every day, we should be uploading our shows because that’s where the marketplace is headed.  There is not enough consideration about why these properties may or may not be valuable and not enough thought about what makes online social networking function successfully.

I kicked things off with a presentation (here is my iMA Presentation) that framed social networking and new media in a broader format.  My point was simply that social interaction online, and social networking more specifically, has been happening for a long time in many different formats — and innovations in technology will only expand on that.  Successful communities are built and fostered online not because of the technology that facilitates the interaction, but rather its the content and experience that people create and share that drives interest.   Public media organizations need to think strategically and creatively about what they produce, how if they want to truly engage their target audience.  I think I resonated with the audience, but honestly am not sure.

Dick McPherson followed me and challenging the audience to focus on specific goals they wanted to achieve online (i.e. build community and membership, not raise money) and broadly about how to creatively execute on those efforts.  Heather and David offered case studies about what works within their networks. 

Now, I do not mean to disrespect either Care2 or Gather.com, both of which I think are terrific organizations and both of whom were well represented by my fellow panelists, but they are only two of the dozens of options currently available to consider.  I am not a big fan of presenting personal case studies on panels because it should be obvious that I would biased towards the things that I have done.  That was the case with both Gather.com and Care2, who have been working with public broadcasting groups to build out social networking efforts.  It just seemed to me that the message of the panel was too much about how public media groups could use those two platforms and succeed.  Maybe they are the best two networks for public media.  Or, maybe the public radio community should be looking at more examples, and more opportunities.  I don’t know, but most people probably left that room thinking about launching Gather.com groups or launching petitions through Care2 and not enough of them were considering all the other venues available to them.

I did make one point at the end that was good, and I think resonated.  A woman in the audience asked for our opinions on how many social networks should a station target and what kinds of resources should they put into the effort.  A good question.  However, in asking the question, she referenced ‘us’ (meaning the station) and ‘them’ (referring to the audience members who would be part of the community).  After everyone else had offered specific answers to her questions, I jumped in, adding something to the effect of: Its very important for you as an organization, for your staff, your talent, whoever, to see themselves as a part of these communities.  You are not separate.  It cannot be us vs. them.  Most likely, the reason that your audience might be intererested in joining and contributing to a community that you organiz is the same reason that you, as a staff person at one of those stations, work so hard to make it successful.  Its about the content, its about the experience, its about your contribution to our society.  If you see yourself as separate from that community instead of as a part of it, you are missing the boat.

I got a lot of nods, and a pat on the back from one of my fellow panelists for making the point.  I probably sounded a little righteous, but maybe that helped get the point across more effectively.  I enjoyed being on the panel and would love to help the public media conversation move forward to where it desperately needs to be, but I am not sure I was able to broaden the perspectives of anyone in attendance with respect to the framing of a conversation about social networking.

Thank you to Teri Lamitie of WGBH in Boston for the invitation.  I very much enjoyed the conversation and I hope that I was able to contribute some interesting thoughts to the discussion.  Please invite me back to do it again.

I want XM and Sirius to merge

I really want XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio to merge. 

Why?  I want to hear Dave Niehaus, the best color man in baseball, call Mariners games for me every night.  I want live happily in Boston and know how my Seahawks and Sonics are playing without stalking the crawl on the bottom of ESPN2 each night.  I want to follow NASCAR without having to sit in front of my television for six hours on a Sunday.  Its not just about sports though, I want to hear what Oprah and her friends have to say about eating healthy and decorating my house.  I want to get public radio coverage from around the country without having to sit by my computer and stream it.  I could go on.

All that is available to me, of course, but only if I subscribe to both XM and Sirius.  I have come close to choosing before.  I received Sirius as a Christmas present two years ago and never activated it - mostly because because the football season was already winding down and I didn’t want to wait until next season to start getting full value out of my subscription.  I have gotten all the way to the checkout screen on the XM Satellite Radio website three times in the last few months, in anticipation of another exciting baseball season, only to bail out in hopes that the rumors of a merger will soon come true. 

If XM and Sirius merged, I could buy one good piece of hardware and one subscription and get everything I wanted.  I would pay good money for it.   I would enjoy it thoroughly.  I don’t think I would be alone.

Simply put, I don’t think my desire to hear a variety of different types of programming from one source is unreasonable.  And I think it is well past time when the two satellite radio giants, and the government, got in line with my thinking.

Joe Nocera writes in the New York Times today (Times Select subscription required) about the possible merger between XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio.  While most of his column is about the regulatory aspects of the proposed deal and whether the FCC would support the creation of a single satellite radio giant, he does get to the heart of the matter - and seems to be in agreement with me.

[The two companies] also compete, of course, for content. Most famously, Sirius has Howard Stern, who signed a $500 million five-year deal with the company and moved his shtick to satellite radio at the beginning of last year. (Last week, the company announced that Mr. Stern had earned an $82 million bonus, claiming that he brought in far more revenue than he cost the company.) XM has an Oprah Winfrey station. Sirius has professional football and has pried Nascar away from XM. XM has Major League Baseball — and took the National Hockey League away from Sirius. Both have loads of news and talk and music channels, but XM’s channels tend to be more eclectic than Sirius’s.

On the face of it, this all sounds terrific for consumers. “Choice is always a good thing,” said Ryan Saghir, who blogs about satellite radio at Orbitcast.com — and opposes the idea of a merger. But it is not quite as terrific as it sounds. For one thing, what if you are a fan of both baseball and football? What kind of choice is it to have to decide between them? Or what if you like both Howard Stern and Oprah? (Well, O.K., that’s not a good example.) It is hard to think of another technology that forces subscribers to make that kind of choice.

Joe Nocera wants to listen to baseball and football on the same device, and the same subscription, as well.  His column sounds like a desperate plea from a radio junkie like me to make it happen.  Hey, Sirius and XM… hey, FCC… if you won’t listen to me, will you listen to Joe Nocera?

I can understand why the FCC might be nervous about giving the green light for a merger of this size.  But with appropriate monitoring and regulation - to ensure that a merger betwen XM and Sirius wouldn’t drive prices for consumers out of proporition with the market (something Nocera seems to argue isn’t likely because of the continued influence of free radio) - the potential benefits to consumers far outweighs the risks.  And I can understand why XM and Sirius are both believers in their product so much that they would rather compete to the death than cede control of their operation to their arch rival.  But really, would you all think about the consumer for a moment?

Rather than forcing customers to choose betwen services (a fact that I believe is actually driving down interest in satellite radio, and probably radio in general), the FCC could bless the creation of something that would provide a far better radio product than what is available today.  XM and Sirius could create the ultimate radio programming center, pitting their efforts against folks like Clear Channel who have sucked all the feeling out of radio in their quest to dominate the airwaves everywhere.  The merger would force traditional radio stations to compete with better programming and an alternative business model (advertising instead of subscription — a mix which I think is totally possible if you do it right).  And, best of all, I wouldn’t have to live without access to the programming I want because I find it unreasonable to have to buy/subscribe to two services instead of one.

Please FCC?  Please XM and Sirius?  Do it for Joe Nocera!  Do it for me!