Thirteen is still an unlucky number…
Full disclosure:
My very first job in TV was with PBS at Channel 13. That would be WNET/13, the PBS station in New York.
I was a production assistant on a public affairs show out of Newark, New Jersey.
So I have a certain affection for WNET/13 and Public Television. And for many years I sent them checks during the begathons and got the umbrellas and the tote bags and the mugs. Lots of umbrellas But no more.
No more.
Not another dime.
Yesterday, Broadcasting and Cable announced that WNET/13 was creating “A Hybrid Web-TV News Show“.
Need to Know
Well, this was interesting, at least on the surface.
They would spend the whole week building the contents of the show on the web, where everyone could watch it being added to by
multimedia content from staff and freelance contributors as well as a small pool of member stations; audience input will also be in the mix
Well, nice that ‘audience input will also be in the mix’. OK, nothing earth-shattering here. Sort of a Wiki for a news story. yeah.. and then. And then..
The Web content will culminate with a linear television broadcast Fridays at 8:30 p.m., co-anchored by Alison Stewart and Jon Meacham.
OK. So on Friday Alison Stewart and Jon Meacham will essentially regurgitate all the stuff we have been reading on the web all week. Well, ground breaking it is not, but at least I have to give them points for trying. I mean The MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour is pretty much unchanged save for the departure of Robert MacNeil some 30 years ago, since 1971 or whenever it started – though it looks like it started in 1958.
In any event…
What I found that really annoyed me comes later in the piece. This is the really astonishing insight into how PBS works:
The show has been in the works for nearly three years, according to Stephen Segaller, VP of content for WNET.org:
Wait a minute!
Can you run that past me again?
The show has been in the works for nearly three years, according to Stephen Segaller, VP of content for WNET.org:
Three years! The show has been in the planing phase for three years! Three year to decide on how to do a once a week half hour with some web content. Three years of meetings? Three years of paying salaries to executives and producers who were working on how, exactly, to put together something so incredibly complicated as a weekly half hour studio show with some web stuff? Three years of lunches? Three years of research trips?
Apparently.. yes.
Please note that it took Marc Zuckerman berg* two months to conceive of, build and launch Facebook.
OK, but that was not the worst.
The worst comes now:
The rent on Need to Know‘s Lincoln Center studio is $1 million a year. The show’s annual budget is more than $10 million, according to sources.
Are you kidding me?
Are you all on drugs over there at WNET/13?
One Million Dollars a year… for rent? (and to yourselves!)
One Million Dollars a year for a studio from which you are going to produce one half-hour once a week!
And another (gulp!!!) Nine Million Dollars for some lousy website!
Are you all insane?
I don’t wanna make too big a point of this, but we over here produce 3 half-hour local news shows a day (for cable), and we do it 5 days a week for 52 weeks a year, and our TOTAL costs are a tiny fraction of your budget for one half hour once a week.
The waste is unbelievable.
I suppose that for you this seems cheap.
It isn’t.
Go ask Andrew Barron what he spent on Rocketboom, a daily news webcast.
A million dollars to ‘rent’ the studio in your own facility. A million dollars! And another 9 million to make and run a wiki.
Beyond belief.
Even if you produce 26 shows a year – run for 26 weeks, that means that you are spending $386,000 per half hour. $386,000 per half hour!!! That’s TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS per non-commercial minute.
$12,000 a minute!
And, if the average contributor gives you $75, which is what gets you the umbrella, then it takes the contributions of 133,333 contributors to fund this colossal sinkhole for cash.
Wake up!
The whole idea behind the Digital Revolution is that things can be done cheaply.
Really cheaply.
And without sacrificing quality.
So first, ditch the expensive and very fancy building at Lincoln Center (or all places. Why not put it on Park Avenue?)
Learn to work from laptops and small digital cameras.
Put your money into the journalism, not the carpeting on the studio walls.
When, when you have learnt how to make really interesting and creative content for what it really costs to do, then come back to me and ask for money.
But not now.
Not if this is all you have to show for my investment.
And here is the worst part (as if this were not bad enough), LIFE the award winning BBC series currently airing on the Discovery Channel was produced by The BBC for a total of £10 million. That would be about $5 million more than WNET/13 has spent on their half hour venture.
Pathetic.
Just pathetic.
*correction courtesy Jeff Jarvis
20 Comments
Dan Haggerty May 17, 2010
Mr. Rosenblum,
I am tired of hearing you rant about this stuff because it always sounds to me that you’re just promoting your business. It sounds like you just want everybody to believe that your model is the future so that you can make more money in consulting fees and workshops.
You say provocative stuff so people will write/talk about it and spread your message.
You should work with public television instead of against it.
Oh.
And as a former VJ I’m not convinced that your overly simplistic model for journalism is what public broadcasting needs.
So why don’t you donate some time and camera’s to prove me wrong.
Michael Rosenblum May 17, 2010
Dear Dan
I actually started working in TV in public TV. Actually at Channel 13.
The waste then and now was almost inconceivable.
But this is what happens when it is not your money you are spending.
When I am paying to put video on the screen, (and I do this quite a lot) I don’t want to pay for meetings or bagels or research trips or brainstorming sessions or a ton of other crap that people at Public TV spend their time doing. Would you? If you had to reach into your pocked every day and pay everyone who worked their in cash out of your wallet, how long would you put up with it? Not long, I would bet.
What Public TV needs is some fiscal discipline. Take a program group, give the, say $5 million and tell them they can keep whatever they have left over after the shows are made. But no salaries. See how much more cost efficient everyone becomes.
Donating my cameras would be like giving heroin to a junkie.
However, I am more than happy to donate my time, but they would have to listen to my perspective.
Maybe that’s something they would rather avoid – and have the free bagels instead.
Michael Rosenblum March 28, 2010
Hi Larry
I don’t think we are all that far off.
I think that great journalism requires two things: a dedicated journalist and time. Everything else is window dressing.
Now, just to play a little game:
Suppose we hired 25 of the very best journalists we could find in the country. Suppose we salaried them at $100,000 a year. I think they would like that. Now, we have spent $2.5 million. If we’re going to produce 52 hours a year, and each of them has to make 8 pieces a year (I think this is reasonable, no?). So, we have 200 pieces over our 52 hours or 4 pieces per hour. With me so far?
Lets give them video cameras and laptops and some travel budget. And they can work in a transparent way – on the web, so with wikis and citizen journalists and such, there can be lots of ‘curating’ and contributions to their stories. We can assemble this anywhere really. And we can do it live. Let’s rent a radio studio from NPR and simulcast the show or rent a studio from WNYC in NY. that’s the easy part. Or we can pre-tape the whole thing from my living room. I will rent it out for a lot less than a million a year. Is this do-able? Oh, I think so. Would we get a great product? Oh, I think so. Let’s put the money in the journalism and not in the carpeting on the walls (which was my favorite feature at the old Hudson Hotel WNET). You don’t need offices any more. Or carpeting. Or receptionists. Or chyron people. Or camera crews. Put the money into the journalism and I will gladly open my checkbook and give all the support I can.
Michael Rosenblum March 28, 2010
Hi Larry
As I wrote to Neil, I anxiously look forward to something really innovative and radical from WNET, (but I am not holding my breath).
That having been said, I have great respect for what you did with NOW. But let’s not start comparing the budgets from PBS to those from NBC or ABC. That is like saying ‘we’re pretty good compared to Chrysler”.
Rather, I think, PBS stations should be as frugal as possible, putting almost all the money on the screen in great content. That, alas, is not the case. I know, because I worked there, and I have many friends who are still there. Not as bad as a network, but nowhere near what an aggressive online start-up will do, or try. Meanwhile, here’s hoping for the best. And still waiting for my umbrella, as it’s going to rain through Tuesday, or so I am told.
Larry Goldfine March 28, 2010
Hi Michael,
So it’s unfair to compare PBS with the networks (even though we cost way less to produce an hour of television and traditionally win more awards than any of the networks)? Ok fine. But in your previous statement you tried to compare PBS programs to Rocketboom, which, as I recall, is a host at a desk in an apartment in front of a map.
Are we even yet?
In any case as someone who has worked at CBS, ABC and Fox I’ve seen a lot of waste in my time (over drinks I can fill you in on some of it) but I cannot say the same for my time at NOW. We had the youngest and most dedicated journalists I’ve ever seen, who were able to do more with less than anyone I’ve ever worked with. Is this the best way to gather news stories? No. Doing more with less may be good for the bottom line but how many stories slip through the cracks? How much more could we have discovered if we spent 6 months on a story instead of 2?
I worry about the state of journalism today. I worry about the quality and I worry that the more we cheapen the product the more viewers we will lose to the Rocketbooms of the world.
Best regards.
Larry Goldfine March 27, 2010
Hi Michael,
Great blog but I have to agree with Neil here, your basic premise is incorrect. While the idea for Need to Know has been on-going for at least three years the staff was put together rather quickly, with some of the best journalists in the business (I know because I worked with most of them at NOW on PBS and Now with Bill Moyers).
I dare say compare the budgets of any 1 hour news magazine show and if any of them can produce the quality product that I know will come out of PBS on Friday nights for 52 weeks for only 10 million dollars, I’ll eat my hat (and your Thirteen umbrella too).
The use of the web mixed with television is a cause you of all people should be behind. It is innovative and will certainly be a work in progress but I’ll bet it furthers journalism not hinders it.
While so many people have written in complaining about a show no one has seen yet, you are wise to withhold judgment until it airs.
Alas, I was not chosen to join Need to Know. I am saddened by that since I hoped to continue the same work I did on NOW, but I will make it my business to watch every Friday night and applaud what I hope will be innovative journalism that maintains the high standards PBS news and documentaries have always had and continue to garner the trust of the viewing public.
I hope after you watch the show and check out the web site you will reconsider and sign your name on another check to support Public Television. But if you don’t, I’ll write a check and add your name in the memo section.
Best regards.
Michael Rosenblum March 27, 2010
Dear Neil
Well, really really high marks for taking the time and effort to respond to my little blog… and on a Saturday no less!
You are right. I have criticized the show before I have even seen it, which is in fact a bit unfair.
Or maybe very unfair.
And maybe I am wrong, and maybe Need to Know is going to blow the roof off of television news and public affairs programming. Nothing would make me happier. God knows, it is a genre that needs some shaking up.
The great opportunity and the great challenge of public television (and this is as true for The BBC as it is for WNET) is that because you do not have to be so ratings driven you can afford to take risks and try new things.
Let us hope then that with Need to Know you have been really risky and really tried to push the envelope. I can only hope…
In the meantime, when it comes to costs, my prior experience both with WNET and with the Beeb tells me that your idea of low-cost production and mine (when I am spending my own money) are probably worlds apart. But again I could be wrong. (But I don’t think so).
We produce a daily half-hour public affairs and news show five days a week, 52 weeks a year. We actually do this in three separate major markets (though not NY). They air daily on a major cable spot. Our total cost for a year’s worth of half hours (that would be 260 half hour shows) comes out to just about half of what you are paying for studio rental alone for your weekly hour.
See what happens when it is your own money?
So, like I said, I am very excited to see your new show. I really hope it is cutting-edge. But my guess is that your expenses are still pretty 1970s. (But I could be wrong).
If, on the other hand, you want to talk about how to do this, I am more than happy to come over. I only live over at 15 W 53rd Street, where you should send the umbrella!
m
Neal Shapiro March 27, 2010
We know clever writing when we see it and, although we admired the structure and zinger lines in your story (maybe some of the cleverness came from your days at Thirteen?), we do feel that we need to set the record straight for your readers.
And we note that it is much easier to write zinger lines when you don’t let facts get in the way.
For example, Need to Know is a new concept for public television. While you may not find it “earthshattering,†it is something completely innovative for PBS in that it is built for the web and television, offering a 24/7 destination for our audience to engage with our reporters and the subjects they will be covering. The work done on the web each week will culminate in an hour-long PBS broadcast Friday nights. (Yes, one hour, not a half hour, as you suggest).
We see you give us points for trying, and we thank you. It might also be smart to wait till the program and website launch in May before you dismiss them. You may be surprised. For I assure you that our anchors will do much more than “regurgitate†stuff from the website. Please give us a chance.
On another point, while it’s true that we began talking about the program three years ago, that’s all we were doing. Talking, strategizing, planning. Yes, we had meetings. They didn’t cost anything. We were already here in the office. No executives, producers or any other people were hired for this project until just a few weeks ago. There were no lunches. No research trips. Just a lot of good, hard thinking by me, my staff members, and the folks at PBS.
With regard to Marc Zuckerman – he’s a visionary genius. We agree with you there.
Yes, the program budget, as reported, is $10 million a year. But that is actually a very modest sum compared to other one-hour weekly programs on public or commercial television.
You have exhorted us to “learn to work from laptops and digital cameras.†Well, you’ll be happy to know that we are doing just that, and have been for a while now. We are actually proud to have developed a new, all-digital production model, which we first implemented in our international news series Worldfocus. This model, which we are now introducing to many programs – including Need to Know – saves us tremendous amounts of money over traditional broadcast production workflow.
But that doesn’t mean the program gets done for free. Good journalism and good television takes funding. Skilled reporters, analysts, editors, producers and technicians do not work for free – nor should they. The work they produce is highly valued and the money we invest in them will be returned to our viewers in the form of high-quality journalism and commentary. So, your comment that we are playing “nine million dollars for some lousy website†just isn’t fair.
Now, to our new studio facility at Lincoln Center. Yes, the rent is around $1 million a year. But the rest of your math is faulty. We will be using that studio for much more than Need to Know. (And, again, Need to Know is a one-hour show, and it will run all year long, not just 26 weeks.) We will be using the studio for a host of local programming – from our SundayArts showcase to our new local current affairs series Metrofocus. We’ll be bringing in our established productions as well. We’ll also be hosting community events, forums and other activities there. And if we have any excess capacity, we’ll rent this space out to appropriate organizations for their activities at a fair rate.
In short, we plan for the studio to be in nearly constant use. So please divide the $1 million per year by 24 x 365 and you’ll get a much more realistic picture of the studio’s actual costs. You’ll find them quite reasonable.
Finally, I’m sorry you tossed your Thirteen umbrella in the trashcan. (You do know those public bins aren’t for household trash, by the way, right?) So we’ll be sending you another one. We hope it will protect you from the black cloud that seems to appear whenever you look at your former colleagues in public television. Or maybe the sun will shine and you’ll take a fresh look at what we’re doing to bring new vitality and relevance to public media. Either way, please keep your eye on us. You might just like what you see.
Neal Shapiro
President and CEO
WNET.ORG
Charlie Martin March 27, 2010
Yes, we had meetings. They didn’t cost anything.
Sadly, the fact that you say this with a straight face probably suffices to discredit your whole argument. Unless these people (a) receive no salary, (b) held the meetings in a Starbucks, and (c) didn’t have anything else to do, it’s false. You might want to look up “opportunity cost.”
Yes, the program budget, as reported, is $10 million a year. But that is actually a very modest sum compared to other one-hour weekly programs on public or commercial television.
So your point would be tu quoque? Or simply that you require $10 million to do what others on the Web are doing for a buck six bits?
John Proffitt March 25, 2010
Michael – Keep the faith. Not everyone in the PBS universe is doing this. Though, sadly, it remains the default approach to content production. The kind of approach you advocate and have demonstrated remains unknown in most of the system.
A few of us are squeaking into these organizations and bringing the gospel. It takes time. I just wonder whether it will take so much time, effort and money to “flip” these nonprofit companies that it will be too late — the revolution will have ended and we will have lost.
We need you to come back and reprise your speech to the IMA conference in early 2007. It still animates the dreams of many of us in the field… http://vimeo.com/8212211
And I would direct more of the fire-breathing revolutionary discussion toward the CPB, who controls enough of the system’s funding to effectively direct the attention of the entire system. They, more than anyone else, can put the kibosh on funding wasteful last-generation celebrity projects.
Michael Rosenblum March 24, 2010
I am not saying there is fraud. I don’t think there is. What I do think there is is sheer incompetence and massive waste of money. But that is often how it is when you are spending other people’s money.
Jim March 24, 2010
Oh jeez… In any media company, all sorts of projects are in development all the time. But it doesn’t mean that any have staffed up or that the TBD project is actually costing anything. In fact, that’s almost never been the case at any of the media places I’ve been, both non- and for-profit. But maybe you have some juicy evidence of something…? Enquiring minds want to know.
As for the new studio fee, local commercial RE chatter says that’s what Lincoln Center is charging for the lease (it’s Lincoln Center’s building & space). But, again, maybe you know something more…?
Not to say that this project might not seem pretty pricey, but there’s a difference between pricey and, well, kinda fraudulant.
Avery March 23, 2010
So, I googled Alison Stewart and Jon Meacham to try and find out a little bit about them.
Ms. Stewart is a contributor to MSMBC and her husband is Bill Wolff the executive producer for Rachel Madow. Hmm, I wonder ideology she will bring to the table?
And Mr. Meacham is an editor for Newsweek. Wow, no left leanings at that rag is there?
Hey, could it be possible they will have a partisan prospective on this show? No, Im sure they will represent both sides equally… as long as its Democrat and Socialists.
When will the pointy head, dark rimmed eye glass TV executives figure out that kind of crap will not work anymore? This might play in NYC but most of America do not want it!
You can still hear the faint echos from the machine guns that brought down Air America into chapter 7 bankruptcy and they want to pile on more. I am not a PBS financial contributor and I wish my government wasn’t either.
Its a joke alright but these days, fewer folks are laughing.
PF BENTLEY March 23, 2010
FYI: Just for the record – Jon Meacham is a Republican kind of guy.
Avery March 23, 2010
You have got to be kidding! If he claims he’s a Republican he is in name only.
By the way, I saw your video about the paddle maker in Hawaii and thought it was great.
PF BENTLEY March 23, 2010
You could never make this up it’s so unbelievable.
Loved the photograph.
steve March 23, 2010
you caught those figures too, eh?
Jennifer English March 23, 2010
Dear Michael,
Bravo. I too grew up with PBS ( WGBH in Boston) and have very deep and complicated feelings about “public media”. As an AM commercial radio broadcaster we, and by we I mean me and my engineer/board operator, produce one hour of original, non-regurgitated content each week. For this we have been honored with the Women in Media Foundation Gracie Allen Award for Outstanding Interview Program in 2010.
Public media, and by the sounds of it Need To Know in particular, require the fancy studios to lure and keep the best and brightest talent. PBS and their expensive budgets and timelines are necessary because they need have a plethora of staff, executives, interns,other arms, legs, eyes, ears and “great minds” to produce an award winning program. I am always surprised to learn just how many people it takes to produce great PBS content. Silly me, I thought great content could be done by one woman with a clear point of view, research skills, expert guests, dedication and an engineer.
Cyrus Farivar March 23, 2010
Not contributing to this one station for their stupidity is one thing, but surely you realize that one public TV channel does not equal all of PBS.
Vanessa March 23, 2010
Well put! Ridiculous! What’s even worse, Michael, is that you know that they aren’t the only ones doing this….somewhere, someone else is taking three years to formulate something, and it’s costing everyone a pretty penny! URGH!