Open Access vs. Paid Subscription model
First, I hereby admit that my last post here was simply bizarre. I hope someone noticed.
Today I can't stop myself from commenting on the new item on the iMA's web site: a PPT file representing a "vision for Public Radio Online" by Stephen Hill. Now I like Hearts of Space as much as the next ambient guitarist, but something appalls me about the notion of charging for public radio content. I'll gladly accept invitations to argue this point at great length, but that's not my immediate point.
Agreed: we have cost/revenue issues, especially with regard to effective web development throughout the system. We need to open our minds as we brainstorm possible solutions. But, um, does a subscription model constitute an example of thinking outside the box?
Granted I'm a dreamer, but seems to me we could devise a highly-functional XML-driven shared-content system (that's a lot of hyphens) without lots of cash. The biggest challenge seems to be organizational change. We'll have to adjust our work flow to fully participate in the world of online media. Lucky for us, it's the kind of organizational restructuring we've been saying we need for the past decade: breaching the walls between TV, radio, print, and Internet. Each formerly discreet medium is now in the form of bits, and bits can be stored, transmitted, and displayed any way we choose. Here's an idea: let's set up a really efficient way to handle bits!
But of course there will be a cost to this transition. Since this is the resource problem, let's think about possible solutions. One might be Stephen Hill's online content subscription model. Another might be to follow the lead of our colleagues in allied fields, like higher education, libraries, museums, and scientific institutions, all of which are much further along than public broadcasting in the universe of online content. We might even find they want to help us.
I better quit this rant for now, but before I go and have an actual weekend off (sort of), I'll place this link on the table. It might provide at least a partial solution.
Today I can't stop myself from commenting on the new item on the iMA's web site: a PPT file representing a "vision for Public Radio Online" by Stephen Hill. Now I like Hearts of Space as much as the next ambient guitarist, but something appalls me about the notion of charging for public radio content. I'll gladly accept invitations to argue this point at great length, but that's not my immediate point.
Agreed: we have cost/revenue issues, especially with regard to effective web development throughout the system. We need to open our minds as we brainstorm possible solutions. But, um, does a subscription model constitute an example of thinking outside the box?
Granted I'm a dreamer, but seems to me we could devise a highly-functional XML-driven shared-content system (that's a lot of hyphens) without lots of cash. The biggest challenge seems to be organizational change. We'll have to adjust our work flow to fully participate in the world of online media. Lucky for us, it's the kind of organizational restructuring we've been saying we need for the past decade: breaching the walls between TV, radio, print, and Internet. Each formerly discreet medium is now in the form of bits, and bits can be stored, transmitted, and displayed any way we choose. Here's an idea: let's set up a really efficient way to handle bits!
But of course there will be a cost to this transition. Since this is the resource problem, let's think about possible solutions. One might be Stephen Hill's online content subscription model. Another might be to follow the lead of our colleagues in allied fields, like higher education, libraries, museums, and scientific institutions, all of which are much further along than public broadcasting in the universe of online content. We might even find they want to help us.
I better quit this rant for now, but before I go and have an actual weekend off (sort of), I'll place this link on the table. It might provide at least a partial solution.
