Change at National Public Radio

Regular readers of this blog will probably know that I've been a long-time public broadcasting exec in the Northwest.  No one much cares if I'm speaking for a medium-sized public radio operation and a small public television operation, so I've not had to be too careful in those instances where I've departed from pointing at news you need to know and offered my own opinions.  But that's changing.

I've been a member of the National Public Radio board of directors since '05 and its chairman since November.  A few days ago I became its interim chief executive officer at the board's request.  So now it's a little different.  Since some people will take this blog as speaking for that great institution, you should know that I'm speaking here in a personal voice.  That's what blogs are about.

I'm not going to comment on the reasons for this change except to say they were multivariate and that much of what's been speculated about this is dead wrong.  Rather, I'd like to continue on the themes I've raised in this blog in the past because I think they inform the future.  I invite the curious reader to visit John Proffitt's excellent list of articles and posts on the subject of this management change.  This is not a coup by Luddite station CEOs who want to stop or slow down effective responses to very types of disruptive change we've been trying to strategically accommodate.  NPR can't and won't do that.

Sure there is a diversity of opinion about disruptive change within public broadcasting.  A small number of people feel that spending a dollar on emerging media is taking it away from core functions.  Another small number of professionals feel that the legacy media are doomed (see, e.g., Jeff Jarvis's post).  Of most concern, though, is that the largest number of people have no position on this at all because they're "up to their asses in alligators" just trying to make this year's budget come out right.  There is no organized opposition, especially at the station management level, to investments in emerging media.

The drawing on the right (click for larger version) is from an old presentation of mine that illustrates what public media are facing today.  Frankly, most of us still think that the traditional flow of content on the left is valid.  But in fact, everyone is able to play every role, including our listeners and viewers -- and they are doing so with very low barriers to entry.  As Gordon Borrell says, "The deer now have guns."  I won't belabor this, but it is now a very different world from the one in which almost all public media managers learned the business.

In a meeting with the NPR staff on Friday, I talked about there being three layers that we need to consider.  At the top is why we're here at all as a non-profit.  There are surely better formulations, but we make people smarter, better citizens, more culturally engaged.  Let's call this the mission layer.  The next layer is what we do.  For NPR it's journalism -- really good journalism -- and other programming.  Let's call that the content layer.  And then there is where we do it.  Historically, that's been over licensed broadcast transmitters, but online distribution is coming on much faster than broadcasting did in its developing years, so we're doing that also along with satellite and mobile distribution.  Let's call this the distribution layer.

So this isn't a battle between the content layer and the emerging media part of the distribution layer any more than it's a battle between the content layer and transmitters.  People now have and are making a wide variety of choices in how they get programming.  We must make it easy for them to access it.  If we make it a contest between layers, our users will lose and ultimately so will we.

I've been asked to keep NPR moving forward, not march in place, in the relatively short time I've been given to lead the company.  That's not a repudiation of its current direction; to the contrary.  In spite of that time constraint, I think that the great people who make public radio happen at stations and at NPR can make real progress in that time -- especially, as Jeff urges, if we seek out and pay attention to what our listeners are telling us directly and by studying how they allocate their attention.

--Dennis Haarsager

Comments

[lizru]

Media distribution is certainly a matrixed world, isn't it? I've always been interested in the how, though. Is every content idea good for every distribution option? Is the ideal of "create once, distribute many" even possible? Or even the right idea? How does user-generated content get wrapped into the content creation process and in what way?

I do think we're long overdue for an evaluation of the various distribution methods and what they're good at -- what's the best story to delivery via video, audio, web and to what device?

As always, asking more questions than providing answers. ...Liz

[Dave]

Dennis,

Thank you for taking the time to share your pov. Best wishes for success in your interim post.

[David Liroff]

Dennis -

Building on John Proffitt's earlier comment about the flow of direct communications between the audience and producers: It's increasingly clear that we no longer can cleanly "map" the flow or directionality of content among the many players in the producer/aggregator/distributor/ listener-viewer cosmos. Doc Searles and David Weinberger were prescient when they observed in "The Cluetrain Manifesto"
< www.cluetrain.com > that "markets are conversations". Indeed they are - and these days anyone can play.

[David Liroff]

Dennis -

Building on John Proffitt's earlier comment about the flow of direct communications between the audience and producers: It's increasingly clear that we no longer can cleanly "map" the flow or directionality of content among the many players in the producer/aggregator/distributor/ listener-viewer cosmos. Doc Searles and David Weinberger were prescient when they observed in "The Cluetrain Manifesto"
< www.cluetrain.com > that "markets are conversations". Indeed they are - and these days anyone can play.

[david weir]

Thank you for responding. Perhaps he will choose to comment.

[Mr. Finch]

I agree with the decision to oust Ken Stern. He has done great things, and will still do more great things, but his time at NPR needed to end. Time for change with both parties.

As I see it, it's a very big catch 22; where NPR's content is easy and free to access for the user, but NPR relies on the stations that distribute that content who are the financial life source of NPR. However, I have been reading this blog for quite a while now, I know that NPR will see great advances in technology as Dennis takes over the helm. Go get 'em and best of luck!

[John Proffitt]

Thanks for the notes, Dennis. And as you know, in Alaska we're trying our best to focus on the WHY question you cited (although the board is slow to understand the importance of the question), as it is the most important question to have clearly answered. Hopefully the whole system -- all the players -- can have that sort of Why / What / Where discussion openly and collaboratively. I still see tremendous opportunity for public media incumbents to become next-gen media/service/community entities utilitizing online capacities as well as old-school broadcast delivery.

Separately, I do think the NPR board would be well served in getting as specific as they can -- without divulging private employment information, of course -- as to the need for change and the timing for the change in the CEO's seat. Having managed people myself, I know a manager or company can't just come out and blab the reasons for employment changes to anyone and many questions simply cannot be answered for legal and ethical reasons. But some kind of on-point and open explanation would be helpful in allaying fears and confusion.

If further comment on the Stern departure isn't possible, then I suggest the NPR board present a clearer picture of the future. Give us -- your collaborators in the system -- something to latch onto, some kind of positive and integrated vision. Give us a map for where we're going. I know I could easily get behind a visionary plan for the future, regardless of the personality occupying the CEO's chair. Plus, you're more likely to find the right permanent CEO if you can articulate that vision and show that NPR as a corporation and the stations as a group are behind the new vision.

In any case, I hope you're still able to toss an article out here on the blog once in a while. And good luck. I don't envy you the short-term chaos you're likely having to handle.

[riverlark]

Dennis,
I am watching what is happening with quite a lot of interest, having wrestled with new media changes in my former life as a public radio producer. I'm curious about why you believe the blue listener arrow only goes back to the aggregator and not to the producer. That's what I see happening now is the ability for a producer to skip over the distributor and station and work directly with the audience. Fascinating times, aren't they?
_______________________
Yes, the blue arrow should probably also go to the producer in a "anyone can be anything" scenario. Thanks. --Dennis

[david weir]

Hi Dennis.

Please comment on my report on BNET that you walked into Stern's office Thursday, told him he was done and that it was time for him to leave the building. Thank you.

Also, with all due respect, the public deserves more than your statement that the reasons for firing him were "multivariate." Transparency is necessary to retain the trust you need to help during this transition.

Either you or the Board should issue a statement explaining this management change, which shocked most people at the station levels around the country.

Otherwise, I fear the tasks awaiting you will be more difficult than they ought to be...Thank you for considering my questions.
______________________________
I cannot comment in detail on this personnel matter except to say that Mr Stern chose the time and day when he left the building. I've given interviews to several reporters on this, including our own, and answered questions as best I could with the entire staff. I've said repeatedly that no malfeasance or misfeasance should be imputed. Ken made many important contributions and should be remembered for those.

Arguably, transparency is an important ideal; his privacy is a right. --Dennis