Paradigm comparison #2 CharacteristicMedia 1.0Media 2.0 ModePushPull Producer brandingMarginal importGreater import Professional curationOn-the-ground5,000-foot level Program usageReal timeNon-real time Program strategyHitsLong tail Revenue per user-hrSmallLarge Role: broadcasterBundleUnbundle Role: userUseRebundle & use
Paradigm comparison #3 CharacteristicMedia 1.0Media 2.0 Usage adds value?NoYes User conversationNilActive User curationNilKey Value horizonOften ephemeralArchival
Expanded local service initiative Utilize new platforms to aggregate a repository of public service media content from stations and their partners Should be seen as part of an online aggregation strategy, including calendars and community-originated text (blogs, columns) as well as audio and video A distributed, not centralized, portal
Think of it as a mash-up of… WGBH.org/forum PortalWisconsin.org NashvilleIsTalking.com CETconnect.org And more…
Prisoners of Big Craft? Weve turned necessity into a virtue to such a degree that when abundance shows up at our doorstep,its hard to recognize as an asset. We need to think of electronic media as not just radio and television, but audio and video also.
Contact information Dennis L. Haarsager Associate Vice President & General Manager Educational & Public Media Washington State University +1 (509)