Public Media 2007

by Brian Reich | 25 Feb 2007, 2:00am

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.

TAGS : Citizen Journalism Event Coverage Free Advice From the Trenches Journalism Public Media Radio Social Networks TV