APPENDIX A: Summary of Recent Reports
Several recent reports examine the rapid changes occurring in the media industry from various perspectives. Dramatic industry changes are occurring because commercial interests understand that a great deal is at stake over the next few years. The public interest community certainly realizes the stakes are high as well. Below are summaries of several recent reports.
In the Battle for Reality: Social Documentaries in the U.S.
By Pat Aufderheide, Center for Social Media
2003
This report provides an overview of the state of the industry in 2003. Aufderheide defines social documentaries as films that “often openly address power relations in society, with the goal of making citizens and activists aware and motivated to act for social justice, equality and democracy.” Aufderheide focuses on broadcast and cablecast documentaries and provides an overview of “beyond broadcast” uses and films not produced for television. She doesn’t include theatrically released documentaries because this report was written before the dramatic developments in documentaries that occurred in 2004: the blockbuster success of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and the unusual success of “Super Size Me” and “Outfoxed.” The direct-sale DVD revolution that followed those films has also changed the surface reality for social issue documentaries. But the changes of 2004 have not altered the underlying change in the industry thoroughly presented in this report. The author provides numerous case studies of producers who are working to bring social issue documentaries to the public’s attention despite great challenges. The report also examines the changing policy environment and the health of the “alternative media” community. (Available at www.centerforsocialmedia.org.)
The Supposed and the Real Role of Mass Media in Modern Democracy
By Agner Fog (working paper)
2004
This working paper argues that economic forces play a dominant role in media and its impact on society. The author provides data to demonstrate that excessive competition for viewers’ attention (and profits) undermines efforts to address social problems. In the struggle for profit, even when social ills are presented on television, they are invariably presented in ways that focus on increasing the number of viewers. “Stories about social problems are often framed with a focus on people rather than principles, single events rather than themes, and easily understandable proximate causes rather than deeper and more complex causes.” The author presents an interdisciplinary survey of the literature of empirical research on the effects of media. One interesting observation is the fact that recent data leads one to conclude that media by itself is not effective at changing individual attitudes but when the secondary effects are measured, media combined with the conversations that individuals have about that media after consumption, the effect is dramatic. (Available at www.agner.org.)
Deep Focus: A Report on the Future of Independent Media
By Andrew Blau
2005
This report probes the future of independent media by first defining the conditions of the present-day media marketplace (rapid advances in technology, demographic changes, funding trends) and then projecting a range of possible futures for the industry, according to the level and direction of flux in the broader context (i.e., developments in the sociopolitical climate). Industry people from all sides of independent media participated in the scenario planning process, grounding the report’s analysis of existing conditions and future possibilities in real-world experience. The report presents a comprehensive picture of the present state of independent media, articulating problems emerging from technological advances, such as “the distribution gap,” in which more media can be produced than can possibly be seen and “the attention gap,” in which the number of places to experience media overwhelms any individual’s capacity to experience media (p. 13). Both of these problems, while they reflect the tremendous creativity being channeled by low-cost media production technology, undermine the professional status and earning power of veteran media makers and “weaken the economic potential of any individual work” (p. 13). The report turns to forecasting future trends, including the increasingly active role played by television viewers (referred to in the report as “broadcatching” – p. 17) through personal video recording devices that allow time-shifted programming, nonpartisan journalism giving way to openly biased news programming geared toward specific audiences, and the growing use of “gaming as a platform for political, social, and artistic expression” (p. 16). Finally, the author makes the following recommendations for action based on these scenarios:
1. Develop a greater facility with market-based transactions, where people who value independent work can support it directly as either sponsors or consumers
2. Rethink how community can be built around media experiences
3. Redefine success such that this new environment of many half-sizes and special niches supports many opportunities to be successful
4. Take advantage of the new economics of making and sharing work to reorganize how media is funded
(Available at www.namac.org.)
Report on the Public Media Caucus
By Alyce Myatt, Center for Digital Democracy
2005
This report represents the workings of a May 2005 Public Media Caucus, which undertook to explore possible industry-wide responses to the continuing deterioration of outdated conceptions of/structures for public media brought to bear by advances in technology and political changes affecting funding. The premise of the report is that democracy cannot flourish without a vibrant system of public media, and that the independent media community must take the lead and “begin outlining what public media should be in the U.S. and how we…can help make it so” (p. 3). The report begins by profiling the current public media infrastructure – including the existing and emerging roles of producers, distributors and audiences – and posits practical questions, identifies meaningful developments and pressing challenges, and suggests possible directions for action to rebuild public media. The report explores questions of sustainability in light of the foundering membership model and decreasing government support, and possible solutions, such as a tax and/or advertising, and what an effective and accountable system of governance might look like. The role of public media in society is discussed at some length, particularly as it should be distinguished from corporate media: “Public media should be participatory and advance civic engagement… [It] should respect its audience, viewing them as citizens not consumers” (p. 14). The report argues that industry stakeholders must form alliances to serve as the heart of a movement for recreating a viable system of public media. Recommendations for action include producing a comprehensive accounting of all “elements of the public media system,” conducting a review of “models of infrastructure, sustainability, and governance of other public media” to draw from in the design of a new system, and developing a “communications strategy…to elevate the issues of public media with targeted populations” (p. 17).
(Available at www.democraticmedia.org.)
What Keeps Social Documentaries from Audiences – And How to Fix It
By Pat Aufderheide, Center for Social Media
2004
This brief report focuses on the problem of lack of public access to social documentaries after their brief festival run and/or initial broadcast, arguing that the potential long-term value of such works tends to be greatly impeded by factors unrelated to the productions themselves and asserts that the market exists for extended use if these obstacles can be overcome. Using case studies of seven “successful” social documentaries with different characteristics (types and amounts of funding, approaches to production and distribution), the author identifies a number of roadblocks to public access, including rights clearance issues, issues related to program format, inadequate promotion and outreach, and the lack of effective indexing and search tools. A group of experts was convened to study the data and explore practical strategies to address these problems, which include educating filmmakers about rights clearance, developing a better system of cataloguing films, and embracing the direct-to-viewer markets.
(Available at www.centerforsocialmedia.org.)
Why Fund Media
Edited by Karen Hirsch
2002
This collection of essays came out of the Council on Foundations in an effort to “dispel myths, examine obstacles, offer a few solutions and share some successes” in the realm of media funding. It includes an overview of the possibilities and limitations of media funding as well as chapters specifically addressing activist video, radio documentaries, documentaries designed for social engagement, and outreach strategies. The essays identify obstacles faced by filmmakers seeking funding, such as funders’ widespread reluctance to support projects due to the scarcity of accessible distribution options, and give examples of strategies being used to overcome them, such as “collaborations between filmmakers and nonprofit organizations,” to achieve a shared social or political agenda that a foundation is supporting, and “targeted screenings to audiences dealing the issue at hand” (p. 3). Chapter 6, “The Documentary in Action,” by Patricia Thomson, offers a detailed analysis of Arthur Dong’s approach to securing funding for his social issue films (both of which had budgets totaling less than $130,000), which involved bits and pieces of money from nonmedia funders who were “more interested in the message than the medium” (p. 2). The collection is geared toward persuading the philanthropic community of the power of media to communicate values and ideas and to “bring home the reality behind social issues in a visceral way” (chapter 1, p. 4).
(Available at www.fundfilm.org.)
The End of Television as We Know It: A Future Industry Perspective
By IBM Institute for Business Value
2006
This report is geared toward senior business executives to help them adapt to and capitalize on the massive changes happening in the television industry. The authors identify the major shift in television audiences – the change from the scheduled TV-viewing, passive audience to a fragmented audience that has migrated to niche content choices or individual content choices to form an “audience of one.” In addition to changing consumer demand, in order to survive the industry must confront the reality of convergence and competition, the growing role of the Internet in delivering content and the outdated business models that will not work in the new era of television viewing. Because change takes place over time, the report focuses heavily on the concept of “consumer bimodality,” in which different types of consumers (the tech-savvy and -hungry crowd vs. traditionalists) must both be nurtured until the transition is complete (the report predicts by 2012.) The report predicts an almost apocalyptic “impending upheaval” and warns that businesses that do not prepare for this new world will undoubtedly fail. The authors lay out six priority actions for executives:
1. Segment: Collect and analyze user data to meet the needs of both the early adaptors and the technologically resistant consumers. Provide targeted development, distribution and marketing to each group so they both remain satisfied customers.
2. Innovate: Take risks today and develop new “business models, pricing, windows, distribution, and packaging.”
3. Mobilize: Cater to the “on-the-go” needs of users and create seamless integration between devices that do not require consumer modification.
4. Open: Provide open and standards-based delivery networks for content development and distribution.
5. Reorganize: Assess your business to determine how to remain competitive and take advantage of these changes.
(Available at www-1.ibm.com.)
In the Battle for Reality: Social Documentaries in the U.S.
By Pat Aufderheide, Center for Social Media
2003
This report provides an overview of the state of the industry in 2003. Aufderheide defines social documentaries as films that “often openly address power relations in society, with the goal of making citizens and activists aware and motivated to act for social justice, equality and democracy.” Aufderheide focuses on broadcast and cablecast documentaries and provides an overview of “beyond broadcast” uses and films not produced for television. She doesn’t include theatrically released documentaries because this report was written before the dramatic developments in documentaries that occurred in 2004: the blockbuster success of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and the unusual success of “Super Size Me” and “Outfoxed.” The direct-sale DVD revolution that followed those films has also changed the surface reality for social issue documentaries. But the changes of 2004 have not altered the underlying change in the industry thoroughly presented in this report. The author provides numerous case studies of producers who are working to bring social issue documentaries to the public’s attention despite great challenges. The report also examines the changing policy environment and the health of the “alternative media” community. (Available at www.centerforsocialmedia.org.)
The Supposed and the Real Role of Mass Media in Modern Democracy
By Agner Fog (working paper)
2004
This working paper argues that economic forces play a dominant role in media and its impact on society. The author provides data to demonstrate that excessive competition for viewers’ attention (and profits) undermines efforts to address social problems. In the struggle for profit, even when social ills are presented on television, they are invariably presented in ways that focus on increasing the number of viewers. “Stories about social problems are often framed with a focus on people rather than principles, single events rather than themes, and easily understandable proximate causes rather than deeper and more complex causes.” The author presents an interdisciplinary survey of the literature of empirical research on the effects of media. One interesting observation is the fact that recent data leads one to conclude that media by itself is not effective at changing individual attitudes but when the secondary effects are measured, media combined with the conversations that individuals have about that media after consumption, the effect is dramatic. (Available at www.agner.org.)
Deep Focus: A Report on the Future of Independent Media
By Andrew Blau
2005
This report probes the future of independent media by first defining the conditions of the present-day media marketplace (rapid advances in technology, demographic changes, funding trends) and then projecting a range of possible futures for the industry, according to the level and direction of flux in the broader context (i.e., developments in the sociopolitical climate). Industry people from all sides of independent media participated in the scenario planning process, grounding the report’s analysis of existing conditions and future possibilities in real-world experience. The report presents a comprehensive picture of the present state of independent media, articulating problems emerging from technological advances, such as “the distribution gap,” in which more media can be produced than can possibly be seen and “the attention gap,” in which the number of places to experience media overwhelms any individual’s capacity to experience media (p. 13). Both of these problems, while they reflect the tremendous creativity being channeled by low-cost media production technology, undermine the professional status and earning power of veteran media makers and “weaken the economic potential of any individual work” (p. 13). The report turns to forecasting future trends, including the increasingly active role played by television viewers (referred to in the report as “broadcatching” – p. 17) through personal video recording devices that allow time-shifted programming, nonpartisan journalism giving way to openly biased news programming geared toward specific audiences, and the growing use of “gaming as a platform for political, social, and artistic expression” (p. 16). Finally, the author makes the following recommendations for action based on these scenarios:
1. Develop a greater facility with market-based transactions, where people who value independent work can support it directly as either sponsors or consumers
2. Rethink how community can be built around media experiences
3. Redefine success such that this new environment of many half-sizes and special niches supports many opportunities to be successful
4. Take advantage of the new economics of making and sharing work to reorganize how media is funded
(Available at www.namac.org.)
Report on the Public Media Caucus
By Alyce Myatt, Center for Digital Democracy
2005
This report represents the workings of a May 2005 Public Media Caucus, which undertook to explore possible industry-wide responses to the continuing deterioration of outdated conceptions of/structures for public media brought to bear by advances in technology and political changes affecting funding. The premise of the report is that democracy cannot flourish without a vibrant system of public media, and that the independent media community must take the lead and “begin outlining what public media should be in the U.S. and how we…can help make it so” (p. 3). The report begins by profiling the current public media infrastructure – including the existing and emerging roles of producers, distributors and audiences – and posits practical questions, identifies meaningful developments and pressing challenges, and suggests possible directions for action to rebuild public media. The report explores questions of sustainability in light of the foundering membership model and decreasing government support, and possible solutions, such as a tax and/or advertising, and what an effective and accountable system of governance might look like. The role of public media in society is discussed at some length, particularly as it should be distinguished from corporate media: “Public media should be participatory and advance civic engagement… [It] should respect its audience, viewing them as citizens not consumers” (p. 14). The report argues that industry stakeholders must form alliances to serve as the heart of a movement for recreating a viable system of public media. Recommendations for action include producing a comprehensive accounting of all “elements of the public media system,” conducting a review of “models of infrastructure, sustainability, and governance of other public media” to draw from in the design of a new system, and developing a “communications strategy…to elevate the issues of public media with targeted populations” (p. 17).
(Available at www.democraticmedia.org.)
What Keeps Social Documentaries from Audiences – And How to Fix It
By Pat Aufderheide, Center for Social Media
2004
This brief report focuses on the problem of lack of public access to social documentaries after their brief festival run and/or initial broadcast, arguing that the potential long-term value of such works tends to be greatly impeded by factors unrelated to the productions themselves and asserts that the market exists for extended use if these obstacles can be overcome. Using case studies of seven “successful” social documentaries with different characteristics (types and amounts of funding, approaches to production and distribution), the author identifies a number of roadblocks to public access, including rights clearance issues, issues related to program format, inadequate promotion and outreach, and the lack of effective indexing and search tools. A group of experts was convened to study the data and explore practical strategies to address these problems, which include educating filmmakers about rights clearance, developing a better system of cataloguing films, and embracing the direct-to-viewer markets.
(Available at www.centerforsocialmedia.org.)
Why Fund Media
Edited by Karen Hirsch
2002
This collection of essays came out of the Council on Foundations in an effort to “dispel myths, examine obstacles, offer a few solutions and share some successes” in the realm of media funding. It includes an overview of the possibilities and limitations of media funding as well as chapters specifically addressing activist video, radio documentaries, documentaries designed for social engagement, and outreach strategies. The essays identify obstacles faced by filmmakers seeking funding, such as funders’ widespread reluctance to support projects due to the scarcity of accessible distribution options, and give examples of strategies being used to overcome them, such as “collaborations between filmmakers and nonprofit organizations,” to achieve a shared social or political agenda that a foundation is supporting, and “targeted screenings to audiences dealing the issue at hand” (p. 3). Chapter 6, “The Documentary in Action,” by Patricia Thomson, offers a detailed analysis of Arthur Dong’s approach to securing funding for his social issue films (both of which had budgets totaling less than $130,000), which involved bits and pieces of money from nonmedia funders who were “more interested in the message than the medium” (p. 2). The collection is geared toward persuading the philanthropic community of the power of media to communicate values and ideas and to “bring home the reality behind social issues in a visceral way” (chapter 1, p. 4).
(Available at www.fundfilm.org.)
The End of Television as We Know It: A Future Industry Perspective
By IBM Institute for Business Value
2006
This report is geared toward senior business executives to help them adapt to and capitalize on the massive changes happening in the television industry. The authors identify the major shift in television audiences – the change from the scheduled TV-viewing, passive audience to a fragmented audience that has migrated to niche content choices or individual content choices to form an “audience of one.” In addition to changing consumer demand, in order to survive the industry must confront the reality of convergence and competition, the growing role of the Internet in delivering content and the outdated business models that will not work in the new era of television viewing. Because change takes place over time, the report focuses heavily on the concept of “consumer bimodality,” in which different types of consumers (the tech-savvy and -hungry crowd vs. traditionalists) must both be nurtured until the transition is complete (the report predicts by 2012.) The report predicts an almost apocalyptic “impending upheaval” and warns that businesses that do not prepare for this new world will undoubtedly fail. The authors lay out six priority actions for executives:
1. Segment: Collect and analyze user data to meet the needs of both the early adaptors and the technologically resistant consumers. Provide targeted development, distribution and marketing to each group so they both remain satisfied customers.
2. Innovate: Take risks today and develop new “business models, pricing, windows, distribution, and packaging.”
3. Mobilize: Cater to the “on-the-go” needs of users and create seamless integration between devices that do not require consumer modification.
4. Open: Provide open and standards-based delivery networks for content development and distribution.
5. Reorganize: Assess your business to determine how to remain competitive and take advantage of these changes.
(Available at www-1.ibm.com.)
