2008 Knight-Batten Symposium Keynote Speech
Bill Kling
CEO, American Public Media

September 10, 2008
National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

Page 2 of 2. <<Return to page 1

American Public Media CEO Bill Kling gives the keynote speech at the Knight-Batten Awards Luncheon.

New tools can be a positive.

Audience engagement can add value through vetted "user generated content."

One of American Public Media's major initiatives improves news quality while lowering costs – and it seems to work for all media. It's called Public Insight Journalism. Several years ago it received one of these prestigious awards from Knight-Batten for innovation in new concepts.

For the past five years, we have been tapping the expertise of our audiences. We have found that there is always someone in our audience who knows more about any given subject than we do and they will share their insight and knowledge if we ask.

There are now 62,000 experts in 50 states and 30 countries in our data base – each tagged according to their expertise. Each is thoroughly vetted before we use them. They provide insight and knowledge on regional, local and national stories every day.

While our PIJ process is being rolled out through public radio stations around the country, we're also looking at partnerships with newspapers and international broadcasters.

As an example of how it works, when the I-35 bridge in Minnesota collapsed last summer, we were immediately able to draw on our network for experts in bridge design, bridge construction, emergency rescue procedures and other relevant aspects of the catastrophe. We provided more relevant information far faster than other media covering that story – as they interviewed random bystanders.

"Analysts" – a new position for a newsroom – vet the expertise of our Public Insight Network and then feed it to editors and reporters who do better stories, faster and with less work. One Public Insight Journalism experiment led to an early mortgage crisis story written completely from expert content contributed by PIN members. One episode of our national program "Speaking of Faith" which had asked the Public Insight Network for input on aspects of Catholicism was completely scrapped and re-built based on the PIJ input.

Our Public Insight team is also using serious games or smart games to inform our audiences and glean important information from them. Because we wanted our audiences to better understand election issues and how candidates' viewpoints compare, we developed Select a Candidate a couple of years ago allowing people to measure their opinions with candidates' platforms. Now you'll see our "game" showing up on various media around the country – it's openly available – and others, like USA Today are creating their own.

Perhaps our most challenging of these games is Budget Hero, our federal budget balancing game. We used Congressional Budget Office figures to create 146 different policy options. Players determine what their budget goals are and then make policy and fiscal decisions while trying to remain true to those goals. Once they finish, they can email their decisions to their representatives and senators or to the White House – making civic engagement a little more fun. We've done the same on a state level. Here's what it looks like. (Graphic on right.)

These are called "smart" games because the data behind them are as accurate as we can make it. Since we can see the results of players' decisions, we can also predict trends such as "the public wants to raise taxes rather than cut key spending" which we then verify with standard-issue polling. We often learn surprising attitudes of the public that others haven't identified.

PIJ in all its aspects is an important tool. But it's just one tool helping an industry that needs a complete re-make.

There are workable business models.

The Web has been another important tool in our industry, as well as a disruptor. Every media chief bemoans the Web as being free by its nature and incapable of supporting its content. Newspapers tout figures for Web readership that would be impressive to any advertiser but they attract little revenue. Inevitably, they conclude that everything on the Web is free and experiments with charging for content haven't worked. But – have they done the right experiments?

Chris Neimath at Salon.com is experimenting with a micro-currency content payment system. Open.Salon.com has partnered with Revolution MoneyExchange, a peer-to-peer payment service that allows you to send and receive money with no fees between account holders.

That might succeed, particularly if others followed his lead.

Jim VandeHei at Politico thinks it is just a matter of time until effective display advertising can be successfully presented on Web sites.

Some experiments have worked well. Steve Jobs went into the Napster environment. Everyone said no one would pay for music on the Web, yet he created the largest and most profitable music store in the world with iTunes.

Technology has always been a threat to those of us in the media. When I started my career, FM radio was threatening the dominant AM radio. Now for those of us in radio, the soon to be ubiquitous cellular Wi-max will make what we once thought of as the car radio, able to receive full-fidelity programming from any source that is streaming on the Web. Chrysler will introduce it this year in its new models. Suddenly our competitors will be Radio Brazil or Radio Afghanistan rather than other local stations. On the other hand, it means that we can transmit our programming worldwide.

In this environment, where geographic dominance is no longer a great strength and where market entry is no longer precluded by a lack of capital or a shortage of frequencies, we are more likely to be a winner than a loser only if we:

• Have strong content.
• Brand well.
• Build a brand of trust.

Put another way, when you can get anything anywhere, you need to focus on why listeners would want to get your thing, anywhere.

Solutions will play out differently on different platforms. Let's take a look at a couple of them.

iPods appear to be creaming satellite radio. And why not. Satellite radio was supposed to add massive music variety for the smallest rural towns. Then came the iPod and the car iPod port and the economic equation changed. More variety for less money by using the iPod.

Television and cable may go through a similar evolution. Increasingly, television shows will be watched on-demand and on iPods or iPod projectors Web to TV converters. More and more, the delivery will be direct to the user on the Web rather than through cable or TV transmitters. Sunday's New York Times, talking about the new WB.com Web-based television network, suggested that "what once looked like a full-on revolution in television – cable – may turn out to have been only a quarter turn of the analog dial." At a minimum, "cable" will have content competitors using alternative technologies just as the iPod did to radio.

Is there a future for newspapers and magazines?

Newspapers and magazines seem to assume that technology is a negative. They wallow in despair about what cruel new technologies like the Web have done to their readers, and what Craigslist and eBay have done to their revenue streams. And they are right ...

But as fast as technology has taken newspapers down, it could re-design them and put them back on top. Technologies like "electronic ink" which is perfected to the point of being used on the October cover of Esquire can provide enormous advantages.

On the newsstand, Time should soon be able to change its cover from Biden to Palin – instantly as you stare at it.

Amazon recently introduced the Kindle with a much more readable screen. Roll- up, thin "Kindles" could solve the distribution problem for people who like to read newspapers.

Display advertising could easily migrate back to newspapers – more likely on their Web sites than their printed version once that model is perfected – because advertisers will recognize there is more to advertising than "click through search." There's discovery. There's image. There's relationship building and finally there's engagement. All are opportunities yet to be exploited or re-embraced in the " new" newspapers by ad agencies in the Web environment.

Technology has always driven change in media.

Ever since Gutenberg, media have "morphed" rather than disappeared in the face of change and challenge. Radio, discovered in the early 1900s, was probably the first mass communications medium to capitalize on new technology since the printing press. It challenged print for immediacy and reach but was unable to match it for depth.

In the 21st century, radio found the Web to be a friend, enabling it to do video, pictures, on-demand audio and global distribution. The iPod and the "podcast" solved the "listen later when you want" problem. Social networks allowed commercial radio to develop new revenue streams and public radio to give audiences new ways to engage with programmers and producers. An integrated video, photo and text Web presence with audio streaming created a new kind of medium.

Radio could have been declared dead in 1948 when television got its foothold. Sixty years later, it is far more robust than it ever was. Leadership with foresight who embraced technology, revitalized, enhanced and redefined the medium, kept it in the game. Other solution providers already have new models and some of them have plenty of revenue. Google, for instance, is combining its interactive processes to create Google News. It sounds like a version of Public Insight Journalism but with less vetting of the data base. Like Wikipedia, it could be a great advance or a further set-back to accuracy in media.

To transform and re-form our legacy media, we will need unprecedented partnerships. We have the individual pieces; how we put them together is critical to the evolution. At American Public Media, we have 62,000 "faculty" in our PIN data base. They need a larger canvas to paint on. We have a wonderful audio distribution system. Apple has the best tech design team in the world. Google has the digital platform with search and mass reach. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have brand and depth. Politico and Salon and The Huffington Post have unique content.

We're at an awkward point. Our media leadership and media vision are currently retreating rather than attacking. I suppose it's possible that Rupert Murdoch has all this and more in his plan. But currently, true, visionary leadership is rare – and right now, very very quiet.

Technology will always advance, and by itself, it is only a tool – a facilitator or a disrupter. We have to control and create the content – it is still the human factor that makes tools useful in shaping content to serve people well.

Yes, there are better and more efficient models than those we have traditionally used, but there has yet to be a replacement for the human brain –both the analytical and the emotional sides of it. That is what content creators need to understand in order to tell effective stories and create effective media. Doing that will always succeed because of analytical and creative people.

What we need is leadership and revenue.

The wonder of this industry is that the next innovation and inventions will come from people like those of you who were recognized today. You know the audience, you know the territory and, if you are encouraged, you will create the mash-ups of media that will engage and inform – and with economic models that work. At our company, we are excited about the future because we can see the potential.

This feels a little like a commencement speech – go forward, be bold, improve the world, take chances – lead.

I suppose that is part of the message.

The awards you've received today demonstrate the best of what individual enterprise can do. What you need are leaders at the top of the news industry (or you need to become those leaders) who can deliver their part of the equation to match your achievements.

I'm happy to say that I am looking forward to it. Thank you.

####

• Return to Speeches & Articles index