Stephen Hill: Funding the Future of Public Media

The following is the opening section of a compelling, visionary proposal by public radio entrepreneur/producer Stephen Hill:     “If public media is to secure its future, it must be with…

The following is the opening section of a compelling, visionary proposal by public radio entrepreneur/producer Stephen Hill:

    “If public media is to secure its future, it must be with the public.”

SUMMARY

This paper presents a set of ideas for reforming both the online service models and the internal business methods of the public media system to allow it to adapt fully to the age of Internet media and digital distribution. It is timely because if fully realized it has the potential to more than replace all federal funding and make the public media system completely independent of political pressure.

It was written in 2010 as a response to the challenge of digital media and circulated privately to about 20 system leaders for comment and discussion. I’m posting an updated version on the Pubradio email list and my blog now because it has taken on added relevance in light of the current politically-motivated efforts to defund public broadcasting. The plan described here could render this potential loss of income irrelevant by replacing it with greatly expanded user support.

It proposes the creation of a national public radio/public media membership program, tied to a massively aggregated, personalizable online content distribution system that can deliver all public media content both at large network sites like NPR.org and PBS.org AND simultaneously to every station site, as well as those of potential affiliates, partners and supporters, and individual users on blogs and social networks.

Full access to the online system by end users and tangible support of the public media mission are the premium benefits of national membership, but all levels of engagement would be supported with various tiers of service.

The existing “channel conflict” between the stations and NPR (i.e. multiple competing delivery channels to the end user) is resolved by phasing in a rational revenue-sharing system that benefits all networks, stations, producers and affiliates appropriately, and gives all stakeholders positive incentives to work cooperatively for a successful outcome.

The philosophical “mission conflict” between free and paid services is also analyzed, and some nuanced solutions are described. I argue that “freemium” Internet business models are applicable to public media and will help it to grow and secure its future as a fully independent entity.

Finally, I identify some of the strategic and business advantages of aggregation — both of public media content and digital services, and of a “super-community” of public media users via a national membership that supports the overall public media mission itself.

I use the terms public radio and public media somewhat interchangeably. Public television could, and I believe should, be included in an integrated national membership + service concept. Joint licensees already bridge this 20th century media division by definition, and the trend toward native mixed-media formats online continues to erode this increasingly outdated distinction between media types.

I believe the time has come to speak openly about the “3rd rail” policy and money issues we have avoided for years. While the proposal may seem radical in scope, I believe it is both appropriate for today’s media environment and completely practical, while grounded in the historic values of the public media system.

I apologize for the length. When you are re-imagining the core business relationships of an entire industry, you’re obliged be as clear as possible and to touch all the salient points.

The key ideas are summarized below in outline form.

via heartsofspace.typepad.com

Thank you, Stephen Hill. This is simply the most visionary, innovative, entrepreneurial… and downright *necessary* proposal for public media’s future that I’ve ever seen. I encourage my readers to pursue the link to Stephen’s site and review the rest of the paper.  — MM