Transcript Public Broadcasting Strategic Investment Scenarios

Public Television
Strategic Investment Scenarios
Digital Distribution Implementation Initiative
NETA 2003 Conference
San Antonio, January 9, 2003
Participants
Work scope involved both radio
and television scenarios. The
latter covered in this report.
Core Working Group & CPB
Ed Caleca, PBS
Jeff Clarke, KQED
Dennis Haarsager,
KWSU, NW Public Radio
(DDII consultant)
Byron Knight, Wisconsin
David Liroff, WGBH
Pete Loewenstein, NPR
André Mendes, PBS
Jim Paluzzi, Boise State
Radio
Ted Coltman, CPB
Andy Russell, CPB
Doug Weiss, CPB
Alison White, CPB
R/TV
Radio
Television
“Civilian”
Multidiscipline Experts Group
Jon Abbott, WGBH
Brenda Barnes, KUSC
Rod Bates, Nebraska
Joe Campbell, KAET
Scott Chaffin, KUED
Beth Courtney,
Louisiana
Vinnie Curren, WXPN
Tom DuVal, WMRA
Tim Emmons, Northern
Public Radio
Fred Esplin, U. of Utah
Glenn Fisher, KTCA
Jack Galmiche, Oregon
John King, Vermont
Ted Krichels, WPSX
Jon McTaggart,
Minnesota Public Radio
Paige Meriwether, KUED
Steve Meuche, WKAR
Peter Morrill, Idaho
Meg O’Hara, WNET
Multidiscipline Experts Group
Maynard Orme, Oregon
Allan Pizzato, Alabama
Lou Pugliese, onCourse
Don Rinker, Alaska
Meg Sakellarides,
Connecticut
Bert Schmidt, WVPT
Jonathan Taplin,
Intertainer
Kate Tempelmeyer,
Nebraska
Tom Thomas, SRG
Mike Tondreau, Oregon
David Wolff, Fathom
Art Zygielbaum,
Nebraska
Current Environmental Scan
Public Broadcasting Today
“Everyone is baking their own cookies”
“Hail Mary” method of funding depreciation
Usage strong compared to other public
service providers, not so (TV) compared to
other broadcasters
Policy support of pub’casting less assured
Our esteem is an asset that can be leveraged
or squandered
Other public service entrants entering
electronic media
The Electronic Media Today
Conglomerates dominate ownership and
control diverse distribution outlets, with both
“horizontal” and “vertical” operations and
pricing advantages
Users are beginning to take control of when
they access programming
Subscriber-based economic models (e.g.,
HBO) are competing with ad-supported ones
Television Today
Cable/DBS are gatekeepers for the main
receiver in 85% of homes
Cable/DBS increasingly deliver original progr.
Cable/DBS focus is on quantity vs. quality
Non-broadcast channels are on threshold of
overtaking broadcast channels in viewing
Television advertising may erode as cable &
DBS develop greater advertising options
No federal support for multicast; no active
support for non-HD models
Diverging Fortunes of Public R/TV
Terrestrial digital transition is mandatory for
TV, voluntary for radio
Content production entities are generally
licensee based (with major exception of NPR)
Public TV viewing and number of members is
steadily declining, while public radio listening
and memberships have increased
Public radio players have explored alternative
distribution platforms to a greater degree
than have PTV’s
Five-Year Horizon
Most Probable Outcomes
Television In Five Years
Terrestrial will be of minor consequence as
last-mile distribution to mass audiences
Viewers will choose from incr. customized,
personalized programming options
Revenues from other than spot advertising
will become significant and competitive
“Must convince” replaces “must carry;” some
stations will be shut out of cable/DBS
Television In Five Years
Erosion of audience and revenue threaten
existence of many licensees; may be fewer
licensees
A variety of technologies, wired and wireless,
to compete for delivery of services
Audiences will still value storytelling, but truly
compelling content will continue to be scarce
First stations in the new mobile
video/multimedia service will begin operation
Five-Year Horizon
Plausible But Less Probable
Outcomes – Wins and Losses
Unexpected Wins
DTV killer application – content or service –
that accelerates adoption
DTV universal set-top box works with a wide
variety of digital services, including DTT
New broadcast models (rich media, mobile)
prove economically viable
Closet of Our Anxieties
DTV DOA with stranded $1B+ investment;
diminished credibility with funders
No federal funding for public TV NGIS –
capabilities drastically reduced
Early surrender of analog spectrum
Continued reduction of funding for public
broadcasting
Strategic Investment Scenarios
Investments may be individual or
collective
Collective Investment Modalities
Toolkits – activities or tools licensees can use
to achieve best practices without need for
collaboration
Service Clouds – stations outsource
significant activities created for specialized
purposes
Colonizers – efforts to operate public
broadcasting mission elements independently
with or without station involvement
Scenario 1 – Sustaining
Make strategic investments in initiatives that
sustain the legacy (broadcasting) business
Tends to maintain operational independence
Preserves as much “gross tonnage” of public
service as possible, at least in near term;
lengthening the “glide path”
High investments in “toolkits,” somewhat
lower investments in “service clouds,” little in
“colonizers”
Scenario 2 – Repositioning
Make strategic investments in initiatives that
reposition public television in new directions
consistent with historic mission
Capacity and scale created at collective level
Emphasis on editorial (programming) rather
than operational independence
Accepts the current “glide path” but creates
new “climb paths”
Increased investments in “service clouds” and
“colonizers”
Public Television Investment Scenarios
Diverging Investment Possibilities
1
g
Increasing magnitude and risk
nario
e
c
S
ent
estm
v
n
I
egic
Strat
in
stain
u
S
—
Innovation Modality
1 Tool Kits
Innovation Modality 2
Service Clouds
Strat
e
Innovation Modality
3 Colonizers
gic I
nves
tmen
t Sce
nario
2—
Repo
sition
ing
Diminishing ability to make parallel strategic investments within both scenarios
DLH, 1/7/03, p. 1
Public Radio Investment Scenarios:
Parallel Tracks Possible
Innovation Modality 1
Tool Kits
Innovation Modality 2
Service Clouds
Innovation Modality 3
Colonizers
Strategic Investment Scenario 2 — Repositioning
Ability to make separate strategic investments within both scenarios
DLH, 1/7/03, p. 2
Increasing magnitude and risk
Strategic Investment Scenario 1 — Sustaining
Collective
Toolkits
Service
Clouds
Generally lower
per-licensee
investments
Service
Clouds
Colonizers
Public Broadcasting
Investment Modalities
<
New Shelf
Space
dio
a
R
<
Ur
y
nc
e
g
Individual
Sustaining
Scenario
>
le
Te
ion
vis
>
Generally higher
per-licensee
investments
Repositioning
Scenario
Colonizers
Provocations
From the consultant…
Scenarios
Provocations
Television Provocations
Form “virtual broadcast groups,” digital
distribution companies that operate key
functions of current stations across markets
Provide elective, centralized station
operations services through PBS
Create public service “digital condominium
association” with other state, national and
international advanced networks
Task system economics panel with devising
strategies to redeploy [insert ambitious
amount here] to priorities
Virtual Broadcast Groups
Repositioning service clouds
Provides competitive (to commercial group
stations) scale and cost savings
Create common technical standards and best
practices
Licensees freed to concentrate on things not
transparent to viewers, on building new
constituency relationships, and fundraising
Groups could aggregate for multiple reasons
PBS Station Operations Services
Repositioning Service Cloud
Provides similar functions to VBGs, though
perhaps more oriented toward technical ops
Natural extension of NGIS role and mission
Services could also be provided with VBG
affiliates
Digital Condominium Association
Builds on blossoming relationships with
Internet2 and affiliated state networks (e.g.,
IA, MI, TX, WA)
Scale saves substantial dollars on capacity
Enables public television to serve emerging
communications needs of education, libraries,
museums, et al.
Multiplies political capital for interconnection
Peering provides collaborative environment
for all “condo” residents – “the pool”
Redeploy $ To Key Priorities
Wide agreement on unnecessary
expenditures at your station (not mine)
Unnecessary = expenditures transparent to
our viewers
Perhaps we really can afford our service
priorities
Set an ambitious goal and task a panel with
the task of identifying where and how – with
proceeds redeployed to programming, capital
needs and repositioning colonizer investments
DDII Scenarios Documents
www.technology360.com
Scroll to “Documents”
Contact Information
Dennis L. Haarsager, DDII Consultant
1019 Border Ln., Moscow, ID 83843-8737
208.892.9445 | e-fax 206.770.6100
[email protected]
Associate Vice President, Educational Telecommunications &
Technology, Washington State University
Box 642530, Pullman WA, 99164-2530
509.335.6530 | e-fax 888.455.1070 | [email protected]