Future of Pubic Radio - A New Entity
Seth has a great post today that in summary makes the point that once a new idea - say classical music - has Tipped past the early adopters into the mainstream it gets stuck. I think that a great lesson for Public Radio is to be found here. Snip -
"So classical music gets stuck because the new stuff isn't like the regular kind, the classics. French food got stuck, because no restaurant could risk its 3 stars to try something new. A convention can't change cities or formats. Schools can't start their curriculum over... the culture gets stuck because the masses want it be stuck.
That's because the late adopters and the laggards have plenty of money and influence--while the early adopters have a short attention span and rank low in persistence.
Inside most fields, we see pitched battles between a few people who want serious change to reinvigorate the genre they love--and the masses, who won't tolerate change of any kind. Hey, there are still people arguing vehemently about whether Mass should be in Latin or not.
History has shown us that the answer is crystal clear: if you want change, you've got to leave. Change comes, almost always, from the outside. The people who reinvented music, food, technology and politics have always gone outside the existing dominant channels to create something new and vital and important."
Jeff Schmidt picks this up early and suggests that Satellite may be the area of the new where innovation could abound again in public radio. Snip -
"We spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing over the Satcasters - but when we look at what they’re doing - they’re trying to change things - to make new things - the kind of things that simply are not possible in the terrestrial radio world. That frightens lots of people. Unnecessarily in my view. They see the world as “either-or”.
I’ve always thought there was a place for the Satcasters in the audio entertainment world. Along with mp3 players internet streams etc..
There should be way more minds trying more things in different ways in the sphere of audio entertainment than commercial radio alone."
I would like to go further. The Innovators Dilemma supports Seth's view. If we put the task for innovation inside the system, it will not thrive.
So what about an Internet Channel for Public radio that is run by the rebels and that has the new as its focus?
Base it far away from Washington. It would have an HQ but it would also be distributed. It would offer access to all but have hubs. Run it with the young, as the leaders were in Public radio 30 years ago. Such a channel will be able to deal with the desire for diversity that is at odds with the desire to keep the existing audience happy. Such a channel can change voice and the relationship both with listeners and inside the system of public radio. It would reduce the risks and the costs of the new.
It could be the New NPR where a network of stations and NPR and other Producers can own the new as a child of the old. It would be the place where the young and the adventurous would flock.
If it produced material that got a major audience, it could migrate the show to the "Majors". It could show the Majors how the new interactive worked. It could be the place where the fears and divisions inside public radio can be healed.
It would offer the conditions for success that are not present when Innovation is expected from the old
