PODCASTING IMPLEMENTATION IN PUBLIC RADIO

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Rachel M. Ward

March 2007

This thesis entitled

PODCASTING IMPLEMENTATION IN PUBLIC RADIO

by

RACHEL M. WARD

has been approved for

the School of Telecommunications

and the Scripps College of Communication by

Gregory D. Newton

Assistant Professor of School of Telecommunications

Gregory J. Shepherd

Dean, Scripps College of Communication

Abstract

WARD, RACHEL M., M.A., March 2007, Telecommunications

PODCASTING IMPLEMENTATION IN PUBLIC RADIO (86 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Gregory D. Newton

New technologies present both opportunities and challenges to public broadcasters. This thesis examines how one such technology, podcasting, is being broached by public radio broadcasters in the United States. An overview of public broadcasting and podcasting is provided. A survey was conducted to measure the perception of podcasting among public radio broadcasters, in keeping with diffusion of innovations theory. Three factors from diffusion theory, complexity, compatibility, and relative advantage were found to shape broadcasters' perceptions of podcasting. Two other attributes, social approval/communicability and cost are proposed for future research. A positive relationship between membership in the National Public Radio network and adoption of podcasting is found. Recommendations for implementing a pilot system of paid podcasting are shared.

Approved:

Gregory D. Newton

Assistant Professor of School of Telecommunications

Acknowledgments

Many thanks are due to the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Duncan Brown,

Dr. Don Flournoy, for their advice and encouragement in pursuing this work, and to Dr.

Greg Newton, my thesis chair, who dedicated considerable time and energy to this project. Thanks also go to my other professors in the Department of Telecommunications,

Dr. Roger Cooper, Dr. Norma Pecora, Dr. Mia Consalvo and Dr. Charles “Buzz” Clift, for their enrichment of my program of study. Robert Spier of NPR Digital Media offered valuable assistance in approaching respondents. Debbie Nogrady, Paula Carpenter and

Travis Funk offered logistical support that kept this project on track.

I would also like to thank the housemates at 240 East State Street, and my fellow public broadcasting students, Nancy Cole, Melissa Hendricks and Erin Doppes O’Brien for making my graduate experience so rich. Thanks go to Rusty Smith, Bryan Gibson,

Sara Magee and the staff and students of the newsroom at WOUB, and to Meegan White at APTS, for their support of my career in public broadcasting. Dr. Bruce Lytle, Dr. Eric

Roselli, Father Young, and the doctors and nurses of the Cleveland Clinic cardiac ICU unknowingly contributed to this project. Personal thanks go to my parents, Rita Mendl and David Ward, my sisters, Becky and Sarah Ward, and my grandparents, Mildred

Morgan Ward, Bob Ward, Cecilia Hirsch Mendl and John Mendl. Finally I would like to thank the Benson-Ganze-Smith family for opening their family and their home to me in generous support of this project. The completion of this thesis is owed to them.

5 Table of Contents

Page

Abstract...... 3

Acknowledgments...... 4

List of Tables ...... 8

List of Figures...... 9

Chapter 1: Introduction...... 10

Overview...... 10

Funding public radio...... 11

Public broadcasting institutions ...... 14

Public radio’s mission ...... 15

Public broadcasting and digital technologies...... 16

Podcasting...... 17

Creating podcasts ...... 18

Distributing podcasts…………………..……………..……………………………….19

Accessing podcasts…………………………………………………………………....19

Video podcasting...... 20

The public podcasting model...... 21

Challenges associated with podcasting...... 23

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature...... 27

Research questions and hypotheses...... 27

Overview: Diffusion of innovation ...... 27 6 Attributes of innovations ...... 31

Relative advantage ...... 32

Compatibility ...... 32

Trialability...... 33

Observability...... 34

Complexity...... 35

Other perceived attributes...... 36

Chapter 3: Methodology and Results ...... 38

Methodology ...... 38

Survey design...... 39

Recruiting participants...... 40

Results: RQ1 ...... 41

Results: RQ2 and RQ3 ...... 44

Discussion: RQ1...... 45

Discussion: RQ2 and RQ3...... 50

Factor 1: Compatibility...... 50

Factor 2: Complexity and trialability ...... 52

Factor 3: Relative advantage...... 54

Suggestions for future study ...... 55

Hypotheses...... 57

Limitations ...... 58

Summary...... 61

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 62 7 Conclusions...... 62

Podcasting and the future of public radio...... 63

Membership ...... 65

Providing content ...... 67

Protecting content...... 68

Disseminating funds ...... 69

References...... 73

Appendices...... 80

Appendix A: Podcasting at public radio stations survey...... 80

Appendix B: Rotated component matrix...... 85

Appendix C: IRB approval form………………………………………………………86

8 List of Tables

Table Page

3.1: Cross tabulation...... 41

3.2: Chi-square tests ...... 41

3.3: Distribution of respondents...... 43

3.4: Varimax rotation ...... 45 9 List of Figures

Figure Page

3.1: Distribution of adopter categories...... 43 10 Chapter 1: Introduction Overview

The introduction of digital television, digital cable, direct broadcast satellite television, digital radio, podcasting, and online television and movie delivery has thrown the traditional media industry into disarray. Traditional models for revenue – placing advertising within over-the-air or multichannel programming that appeals to mass audiences – are being challenged in a number of ways. This challenge is even greater for those broadcasters that shun the traditional revenue model and for whom public service is more critical than maximizing quarter-hour ratings, program share or audience share.

These broadcasters, public broadcasters, stand on the edge of a digital revolution that will either reinvent and reinvigorate their service or send them into obsolescence.

Public broadcasting has long conceptualized its mission as one of service to those listeners and viewers that commercial broadcasters would sooner neglect. Opera lovers, rural, poor, immigrant, senior citizen, low-education, news junkies and young listeners and viewers are the daily bread of public broadcasting. Developing new technologies to reach these constituencies in a cost-effective way has long been public broadcasting’s modus operandi as demonstrated by the industry’s development of tape relay services, satellite interconnection, cable broadcast, educational websites and online giving

(Witherspoon & Kovitz, 2000). That other broadcasters later co-opted these advances for commercial purposes shows that public broadcasting is not only a proving ground, but also one with a successful track record.

This thesis will explore public broadcasting’s developing relationship with a specific new technology challenge – how podcasting affects public radio stations. As a 11 much-vaunted innovation, podcasting presents potential rewards, like reaching new constituents, new underwriting opportunities and increased ability to provide new content streams. It also poses specific challenges, like how to balance access obligations with revenue realities. This chapter will discuss the unique structure and mission of public radio, the technical specifications of podcasting as a technology, and what the integration of these two media might hold.

Funding public radio

Unlike many public broadcasting systems across the globe, the American public broadcasting system’s licensees are each independent entities, charged with selecting, creating, and funding their own programming. Less than a quarter of financial support for public radio comes from the federal government (Witherspoon & Kovitz, 2000), giving individual stations significantly more programming autonomy than their international counterparts. This independence is tempered by the financial constraints attendant with noncommercial broadcasting restrictions.

Public broadcasters are classed as noncommercial educational broadcasters, which are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to nonprofit educational organizations (Federal Communications Commission, 2001). According to the FCC, these stations must “be used for the advancement of an educational program” and

“furnish a nonprofit and noncommercial broadcast service” (Federal Communications

Commission, 2001). Taken at its widest meaning, this license type can include a diverse range of broadcasters, including stations licensed to high schools, religious broadcasters, 12 state radio networks and college radio stations. This discussion applies mainly to those stations that fall under the auspices of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

CPB is an independent nongovernmental entity that receives federal funding that it in turn grants to noncommercial public broadcasters. The largest of these grants are

Community Service Grants (CSGs) which fund such station activities as the development of programs in-house and the purchase of programs from other sources. To receive funding, stations must be “CPB qualified.” To become CPB qualified, stations must meet minimal criteria, such as operating on a noncommercial license, broadcasting with at least

100 watts of transmission power for FM stations and 250 watts or greater for AM stations, and airing a minimum of 18 hours of consecutive programming each day for 52 weeks of the year (Radio Community Service Grants, ND). There are many noncommercial broadcasters that do not qualify for CPB funding, including university stations that do not operate 52 weeks per year, community stations with no full-time employees, and stations that broadcast religious programming exclusively (Radio

Community Service Grants, ND).

CSGs are not the only source of funding for public radio stations, however. Public broadcasting (television and radio) as a whole is funded by a combination of contributors.

Besides its appropriation to CPB, the federal government also funds some specific expenses by means of competitive grants, as with the Public Telecommunications

Facilities Program (PTFP). PTFP offers grants, loans and matching funds for the purchase of new equipment for planned upgrades (such as television’s digital transition) and for emergency funds, such as the award to the Louisiana Educational Television 13 Authority after Hurricane Katrina (Commerce Department, ND). The federal share of funding for public broadcasting as a whole is slightly less than 20 percent (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2006). This percentage is lower for radio because radio stations do not receive funds for literacy efforts like Ready To Learn and Ready To Teach

(Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2006).

Other funders of public broadcasting include foundations, which donate funds for programming, outreach initiatives, and goodwill association with a station. According to the 2007-2009 CPB Appropriation Request and Justification, as a whole, public broadcasting receives about seven percent of its support from foundations. Subscription, or membership, plays a substantial role in funding public broadcasting, with over 25 percent of support coming from pledges. State and local governments, and the educational institutions that some stations are licensed to, also form a big part of the public broadcasting funding picture; they provide just over 25 percent of funds

(Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2006).

Business provides 15 percent of the support that public broadcasting receives

(Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2006). Business funds public broadcasting in several ways – through in-kind donation of supplies, through direct donations, and through underwriting of programs. To acknowledge these contributions, stations place announcements (underwriting) before, during, and after their programs that acknowledge the business and often provide information about a service or product that a business provides, and some limited contact information (National Public Radio, 2000). The key difference between commercial sponsorship and underwriting is the tenor of the announcement – underwriting strictly eschews “promotional” or laudatory speech 14 (National Public Radio, 2000). The underwriting credit is the hallmark of public broadcasting for many listeners, and is one of the most audible differences between commercial and noncommercial radio.1

Public broadcasting institutions

American public broadcasting developed not as a national network but as a system in which local broadcast entities and national distributors depend on each other to co-operate. Stations receive funding from a web of funders and use that funding to buy programs from a number of sources, including sources that redistribute programming created at other public stations. Rather than the top-down structure of commercial networks, public broadcasting is composed of a series of interrelated and interdependent organizations.

Many CPB qualified public radio stations use their CSGs to become members or affiliates of the large program distributors for public radio. Stations join National Public

Radio (NPR), Public Radio International (PRI), American Public Media (APM) or

Pacifica Radio (or some combination of the four) because of the convenience of receiving content that is tailored to the mission and needs of public broadcasters. However, membership in these content networks is not required to receive funding from CPB, or to be called a public radio station. NPR, PRI, APM and Pacifica are not like commercial networks that exchange their air time for compensation. Rather, public radio stations pay to be members of a network in exchange for a certain number of programs or content

1 Underwriting credits are notable for their consistent construction across public broadcasting. Stations closely follow NPR’s interpretation of FCC rules for underwriting. This means that spots are generally 10 seconds or shorter and share contact information and descriptions neutrally (National Public Radio, 2000). Underwriting credits are also allowed to acknowledge what service the funding supports, how long the funder has been in operation, and to give an identifying slogan (National Public Radio, 2000). 15 hours, to be aired (within criteria established by the program distributor) according to the station’s needs.

The oldest of these networks is Pacifica, which was established in 1949 and which first brought the concept of soliciting listeners for support to public radio (Pacifica Radio

Archives, ND). NPR was established in 1970 to provide content to public radio broadcasters and to bolster a disorganized and flagging public radio movement. NPR distributes over 130 hours of its own programming and member-produced programming to members weekly, including public radio’s flagship programs, All Things Considered and Morning Edition (National Public Radio, ND). PRI distributes over 400 hours of affiliate-produced programming a week, including This American Life (Public Radio

International, ND). PRI is also the distributor for the BBC’s World Service in the United

States (Public Radio International, ND). APM is a fairly new entity that was born out of

Minnesota Public Radio’s strength as a production and distribution center, and is known for bringing listeners A Prairie Home Companion and Marketplace (American Public

Media, ND).

Public radio’s mission

Public radio stations exist to meet the needs of audiences that commercial broadcasters cannot or will not serve (Potter, 2006). Never primarily serving a formal education role (Witherspoon & Kovitz, 2000), public radio stations fill the role of public information gateways, providing local and national news, arts and culture programming, and spaces for community discussions. Because of each station’s independence, no 16 overarching mission statement exists for public radio. However, Current, the newspaper of public broadcasting, has compiled a list of commentaries and editorials that embody the spirit of public broadcasting. Leaders from across the system list the responsibilities of public broadcasting to include

[Serving as] a unifying force in American culture, a lens through which we can

understand our diverse nation and the world, [to give] voice to new talent,

celebrating the great works, to bring exuberant life to the country’s most

important public space, to make programs for citizens not consumers, [and] to

empower active citizens with knowledge, locally as well as nationally. (Behrens,

ND)

Public broadcasting and digital technologies

Digital technologies represent a unique opportunity and challenge to public broadcasting. Because public radio, unlike public television, does not face a digital conversion mandate, it has been allowed to travel that path at a more leisurely pace

(Behrens, 1997). Much-vaunted threats by satellite radio to public radio’s niche audience have not yet come to pass (Egner, 2004). Public radio’s lesser dependence on federal funds and its unobtrusiveness as a medium also reduce the glare of the spotlight from fiscally conservative politicians (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2006). Given these advantages, public radio has some flexibility in exploring new ventures, particularly those that might seed new revenue models.

The challenge is to harness new technologies that might enable new funding and service models. Foremost of these new technologies is podcasting, which is quickly 17 becoming a popular way to consume public radio’s product (Glaser, 2005; Jaffe, 2006;

Janssen, 2006). Concerns about fractured audiences have hampered podcasting efforts, however (Friess, 2006; Glaser, 2005; Williams, 2006). In this sense, podcasting is both a boon and a potential morass – it must be pursued carefully in order to manage users’ expectations about the availability of public radio’s content beyond the traditional broadcast reach, and to protect the position of public radio stations in their markets and their relationships with their membership. In order to understand how new technologies affect this system, with its delicate balance of interests, the following research question is proposed:

RQ1: Who in public radio is using or planning to use podcasting?

Podcasting

“Pod” “casting” is really neither. It is not exclusive to the iPod digital music device, nor is it a broadcast in the traditional sense. Podcasts are analogous to broadcasts in that content is created and transmitted, or “podcast,” to the general public. However, unlike a broadcast, a podcast is not intended to be transmitted over the public airwaves and used simultaneously by all members of the audience. Rather, podcasting is a hybrid of several different transmission and reception technologies and users. The components of podcasting are:

• The podcasters: the organizations and individuals who create and post podcasts;

• Users: the individuals who subscribe to podcasts; and

• Devices: the technology onto which podcasts are downloaded and played back.

Podcasting is often associated with the phenomenon of weblogs, or “blogs.”

These websites function as a place for individuals or organizations to post messages 18 relating to current events, politics, popular culture, or other topics that merit up-to-the- minute scrutiny. There are many companies, including Blogger (www.blogger.com) and

MySpace (www.myspace.com), which offer free web space and templates for creating blogs, as well as organizational schemes to create online communities of readers and writers. Blogs are popular for several reasons. Because basic versions of these tools are frequently free, virtually anyone with an Internet connection can create a blog and begin voicing their opinions (Blood, 2004). Commenting features allow readers to participate, enriching the material that is posted (Kerbel & Bloom, 2005). Blogs also offer readers ways to interact with news and share ideas that are not possible using television, radio or newspapers. Using the device of a blog, a user can be a contributor, rather than simply being a “caller” or “reader.” Audio versions of these commentaries were the predecessor to podcasts, created to provide on-the-go audio material for avid fans of certain blogs.

From the humble blog, the podcast exploded into its own medium. FeedBurner, the largest facilitator of podcast provision, keeps a running tally of its feeds, and claims that over 70,000 audio and video podcasts are currently offered by their service alone

(FeedBurner, 2006).

Creating podcasts

Podcasting’s strengths are its high portability, low cost of production, and low usage cost for subscribers. Podcasts can be created from any audio source that is converted into an MP3 file. The MP3 standard enables digital content providers to squeeze large amounts of audio data into tiny files. This MP3 file is then uploaded to a webpage and enclosed as an “attachment” within an RSS feed of a website (Russell,

2005). RSS stands for “rich site summary” (or “really simple syndication”) and is a type 19 of code that alerts users who have software applications called “aggregators” that there is new content on a webpage to which they “subscribe” (Joiner, 2004). Before the advent of podcasting, RSS code was used by news organizations to alert aggregator users, or subscribers, of news articles that might be of interest to them, based on their pre- designated preferences. The software used to aggregate content is often offered free of charge because using the service drives users to the websites of the organizations that offer the content (Joiner, 2004). One of the most popular aggregators comes with Apple’s free iTunes music playing software. Also available, from Public Radio Exchange, is

Pubcatcher, which allows public radio stations to customize the software with their logo and links to online pledging (Pubcatcher, ND).

Distributing podcasts

Like a personal shopper who receives a request and then finds the item, aggregator software automatically downloads podcasts for the user from the webpage where it was posted (Farivar, 2005). Users indicate their preferences to the aggregator by examining lists of available podcasts and audio samples that are offered either inside of the aggregator, as in iTunes, or by visiting a website like NPR’s Podcast Directory

(www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_directory.php). Individual podcasts can be downloaded once their creators make them available, or subscriptions can be created using the aggregator software, in order to ensure that the newest version of a program is always downloaded and available for listening.

Accessing podcasts

Despite having a name that references Apple Computer’s iPod device, podcasts can be played on any digital music player, including personal computers equipped with 20 free MP3 audio software (such as Winamp). Because podcasts are stored in the MP3 format, they can be played through any device that has both the ability to store the MP3 and the software to play MP3s. Putting downloaded podcasts onto a digital music player is called “synching.” Depending on the device and the aggregator used to manage podcast subscriptions, this process can be automated. In this case, if a digital music player is attached to a computer, podcasts can be downloaded directly to the audio device and then listened to on the go. Different aggregators offer a number of options for managing subscriptions, including automatically removing from the device those podcasts that have been played, and pausing subscriptions to podcasts that have not been listened to for a designated interval.

Video podcasting

Video podcasting was introduced in September 2005 through the iTunes service, to coincide with the launch of a video-enabled iPod (Wingfield, 2005); soon thereafter cable and broadcast networks began to make their programs available for download at

$1.99 a piece. Public broadcasters responded a year later, making seven popular PBS programs available on the service for $1.99 a piece (PBS News, 2006). While this type of podcasting is not the focus of this study, the very introduction of such a feature is telling.

As mobile phone providers, and now Apple, rush to put video content in the palm of one’s hand, mobility is more and more the gold standard for media. Podcasting fits within this trend because it has been mobile from the very start. Unlike video streaming from web sources like Launch (www.launch.com) or Real Networks (www.real.com), podcasting gives users a permanent file that can be transferred from one device to another, can be played by non-proprietary applications, and can be used at the computer, 21 on the train, or on a plane. Streaming, with its emphasis on protecting proprietary data and recouping the costs of bandwidth and storage space through advertising, cannot compete technologically with podcasting’s mobility in its current free and flexible incarnation.

Given the rising popularity of podcasting, and its potential to introduce new users to public radio (and public radio users to new technologies), the following research question is proposed:

RQ2: What factors encourage or impede the adoption of podcasting?

The public podcasting model

NPR is currently managing podcasting as an auxiliary service (Glaser, 2005).

Many stations are using the technology as an opportunity to make locally produced material available on-demand, around the clock. NPR provides a podcast directory of the offerings created by its member stations, as well as some material created independently by NPR (Rebbapragada, 2006). Many of the podcasts are simply digital copies of material that is available for free as broadcasts on member stations, such as Pacific Time from KQED, or On the Media from WNYC. Some shows, however, particularly those composed by NPR, are made especially for podcast listeners (Glaser, 2005). An example of this type of show is NPR’s Pop Culture podcast. This “show” is composed of segments aired on the network from across the week, including material from Morning

Edition, All Things Considered and Fresh Air. While these efforts may be in their initial stages, producing mobile digital audio is clearly not a fad. Former NPR vice president for news Bill Marimow told Steve Behrens of Current in July 2006 that “the goal in the long term is to make sure that everything we produce for broadcast has an online, podcast, 22 cellular phone component to it. That’s a long ways away, but we’re moving in that direction” (Behrens, 2006b, NP).

As stations and program providers experiment with the technology, a public model of podcasting is developing. At present it is a hybrid of the traditional public radio sponsorship/underwriting model and the network/affiliate system. Speaking to Mark

Glaser of the Online Journalism Review, Maria Thomas, vice president and general manager of NPR Online describes NPR’s take on the new model:

We are actually working with a subset of stations that provide audio to us, and

we’re organizing that audio into a central database, so we can put consistent

inventory units around the audio. And we would sell those inventory units to

underwriters, and if we are successful with that, we would share that revenue with

the stations. That’s a different model than what we have on the radio. The whole

principle is that we’ll have to act differently on these new platforms because the

model we have on the radio might not work in this world – but we have to be in

this world. (Glaser, 2005, NP)

A few months later, Mike Janssen, writing in Current, quoted Thomas as saying that,

“underwriting sales have more than paid for the bandwidth and staff costs sustaining the project” (Janssen, 2006, NP). What is driving this underwriter interest may well be the fervor of listeners themselves. According to Mark Glaser, demand for NPR products in a portable format was a primary impetus for the network to speed up plans to make podcasts available (Glaser, 2005). This reversal – consumers driving demand rather than providers trying to create demand – is a good starting position for public radio. 23 Challenges associated with podcasting

What then, is the downside of turning everything into a podcast and providing it online? Bandwidth is a minimal consideration as storage space expands and costs drop.

Rather the real cost is that of opportunity. When local stations lose the opportunity to be the first outlet to present a program to their listeners, members could begin to question the necessity of pledging – or might miss the pledge drive entirely if they use the NPR podcasting service to supplant daily listening. While it is not possible for a news junkie to get the entire NPR or PRI lineup2 via podcast, it is possible to get newsbreaks and non- time sensitive programs updated several times throughout the day, if users have the patience to sync their players multiple times.

Scheduling differences across the system make it virtually impossible for distributors and producers to hold the release of a podcast until the program has had the opportunity to be aired at every station (Friess, 2006). Even if they could, this practice would reduce the value of topical programs, making the podcasts useless, or worse, inaccurate as complicated new stories develop.

Further, while the “web of funders” model that supports television and radio public broadcasting is often a strength in buffering stations from political tides, it makes instituting system-wide podcasting difficult. What constitutes “local” or “national” programming (and underwriting) will be an issue as podcasting becomes more popular as a medium, and as structural problems within the public broadcasting system are amplified through the Internet. Federal and state funders have long questioned the need for a public

2 The necessity of updating means that podcasts cannot be made available until they are actually produced; live shows like NPR’s daily news magazines cannot be posted until they have been recorded and uploaded to the website. Stations that air these shows in real-time will always have a time advantage over a podcast, no matter how quickly the website is updated after the fact. 24 system in the face of new information technology and offerings from cable and satellite providers (Avery & Stavitsky, 2000). Audience rates have gone flat (Janssen, 2005b) while contributions and membership rates have been in decline in the industry, despite an increased demand for both program distributors (like NPR and PBS) and local stations to make material available online (Behrens, 2001; Glaser, 2005).

At the moment, most podcasts offered by NPR, PRI and APM and their member stations are free. The logic goes that the material is available for free over the air, and the system is a taxpayer supported public service, so podcasting extends the mission

(Behrens, 2006; Friess, 2006). In practical terms, however, podcasting is free to encourage greater use, with that hope that it will in turn build compelling numbers for underwriting purposes (Glaser, 2005). Podcasting is the first big opportunity for public broadcasters to create new underwriting slots (without shifting program clocks) since launching websites in 1990s. Therefore it is imperative that the initial product be free to encourage curious listeners to explore the medium and get hooked. NPR currently shares profits with stations through a podcasting consortium; stations that provide podcasts receive a cut of the underwriting profits for spots placed in their shows (Glaser, 2005).

However, media consultant Paul Marszalek warns that NPR and other public outlets must be careful not to provide the tools for their own destruction to listeners, in a

December 2005 issue of Current: “Public radio, rich in exclusive content, should strongly consider not giving away that material via free podcasts. I believe we, collectively, are in a strong position to create the appropriate business model from the start” (Marszalek, 2005, NP). Marszalek goes on to propose a model where broadcasters would team up with existing podcast outlets, such as iTunes, and charge a low price, such 25 as 25 cents per download, for podcasts. According to Marszalek’s calculations, “even after handing half the revenue to Apple – the podcasts would yield a cool $4.5 million a year” (Marszalek, 2005).

While Marszalek is correct in noting that podcasting represents an opportunity that stations should get right, as a consultant to local stations his perspective is oriented toward maintaining the model in which listeners become members of their local stations, and the stations in turn are members of NPR and PBS. An idea within the public broadcasting system that challenges this model to some degree is one suggested by

Dennis Haarsager of Northwest Public Radio to Current editor Steve Behrens in February

2006. Haarsager supports the Open Media Network (OMN), which uses a peer-to-peer style filesharing program that draws on the resources of a network or grid of users (while still protecting copyrights) to provide content.

The OMN project originated not within the incubator of a public radio program distributor like NPR or PRI, but was instead developed by Silicon Valley benefactors who wanted to advance the underlying filesharing technology by integrating it into the work of a nonprofit (Behrens, 2006). While the system’s technology is sound, the far- flung access that it provides listeners poses two issues for broadcasters. First, if listeners feel compelled to pledge to out-of-market stations whose content they use on OMN, their

“public radio universe” is now opened up far beyond the local station, and pledge dollars for local stations could diminish if local podcast products are not popular downloads – big producing stations, that have budgets with room to develop new shows would likely have an advantage. Second, Open Media Network brings public media of all kinds into the fold, including programming from Pacifica Networks (Amy Goodman’s Democracy 26 Now), which NPR and PBS may see as an affront to their network control. If a single model, application or portal is needed to centralize traffic and sell enticing packages to underwriters, then two competing systems – one administered from the network down, and one administered from the stations up – are clearly an unattractive vision of the future.

Competing applications for podcasting are evidence of the diversity of opinions about what public media will look like in the future. Whether or not listeners begin to get shows online before they can hear them on the radio, and whether or not this availability causes them to change their giving habits has yet to be seen. However, increasing the choices and maximizing the portability of content, and the new simplicity of sampling fare from across the system represents another opportunity cost. If listeners can compose their own schedule of quality public radio programming from stations across the country

(bypassing the decisions of their local station’s program director), what incentive do they have to pledge locally? Yet, what mechanism exists to help them conveniently pledge to the stations outside of their listening area whose content they do consume? At present, there is none. With an unclear future ahead, this study will examine how the understanding of podcasting is developing among stations in the system, and how this understanding is affecting the technology’s diffusion. The final research question proposed is:

RQ3: How does the perception of podcasting affect its adoption by stations?

27 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

Research questions and hypotheses

Three research questions are proposed in Chapter 1:

RQ1: Who in public radio is using or planning to use podcasting?

RQ2: What factors encourage or impede the adoption of podcasting by public

radio stations?

RQ3: How does the perception of podcasting affect its adoption by stations?

This review of the literature will focus on hypotheses that originate from a discussion of the third research question. While an answer to RQ1 would yield a universe of stations to monitor for longitudinal study and RQ2 asks about the real world issues that affect public broadcasters as they explore new technologies, RQ3 speaks specifically to podcasting and its attributes as an innovation. Within RQ3, five hypotheses are proposed, related to the five attributes of innovations described by Everett Rogers in his 2003 book Diffusion of

Innovations. These questions are explored below through a review of diffusion of innovations theory.

Overview: Diffusion of innovation

Studies of new technologies, like podcasting, can be examined within a variety of theoretical frameworks. For those researchers seeking to understand the consumer experience of a technology, uses and gratifications theory provides insight into how and why that tool is being adopted. Technology transfer looks at technology management at the industrial level to understand how innovations can be successfully developed for the marketplace. Sociologists look at new technologies as they diffuse through networks of individuals or groups. All of these perspectives are shaped by a central theory, from 28 which sub-disciplines have evolved into their own mature methods of discovery. That central theory is the diffusion of innovations, developed from Gabriel Tarde’s “law of imation,” which sought to understand why a select few ideas become successful (Rogers,

2003). Diffusion of innovations was brought to the lexicon of the technology researcher by Everett M. Rogers and has become an important framework for exploring the use of information and communication technologies (Chyi & Lasora, 1999; Cooper & Zmud,

1990; Finn, Maher & Forster, 2006; Hurt & Hibbard, 1989; Lippert & Forman, 2005;

Teng, Grover & Güttler, 2002).

Diffusion of innovations theory describes the process of diffusion in which “an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (Rogers, 2003, p. 5). This core definition contains the four key elements of diffusion, which define its sub-disciplines. Diffusion studies examine the communication channels over which information about an innovation travels, the time element of how quickly that information spreads and subsequent adoption might occur, the characteristics of the social system within which the innovation diffuses, and the characteristics of the innovation itself (Rogers, 2003).

Communication channels are important to the study of diffusion of innovations because without appropriate channels, information about a given innovation would not spread. Communication channels can also give an innovation credibility, discredit it, or mandate its adoption, depending on the initiator of the communication. Rogers describes two overarching categories of channels, (1) mass media channels, which broadcast a message from a single sender to many receivers and operate efficiently and rapidly, and 29 (2) interpersonal channels, which involve an exchange between individuals and which may influence adoption more heavily because of the trust between the two parties (2003).

Individual interactions influence adoption heavily, particularly when the two parties involved are “similar individuals who belong to the same groups, live or work near each other, and share similar interests” (Rogers, 2003, p. 19). And yet, paradoxically, individuals who are very similar, particularly in their technical knowledge, cannot effectively transfer behavior-changing information about an innovation if neither party has more information than the other. In studying diffusion (particularly for marketers, or others who wish to advance adoption), much is made of the balance of homophily (similarity) and heterophily (dissimilarity).

How these communication channels affect adoption is best measured over a period of time. A single communication is not effective at persuading an individual to adopt an innovation, as evidenced by the billions of dollars spent on repeating advertising messages annually (Brown, Endicott, MacDonald, Schumann, Morrison, Raynes, Reader

& Weatherbee, 2006). Therefore, to fully understand how innovations are adopted or not adopted, a snapshot in time is not most effective (though it may be most cost-effective for researchers). Rogers describes the time process as such:

The time dimension is involved in diffusion in (1) the innovation-decision process

by which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation through its

adoption or rejection, (2) the innovativeness of an individual or other unit of

adoption (that is, the relative earliness/lateness with which an innovation is

adopted) compared with other members of a system, and (3) an innovation’s rate 30 of adoption in a system, usually measured as the number of members of the

system who adopt the innovation in a given time period. (Rogers, 2003, p. 20)

Because podcasting is a relatively new technology, this research does not attempt to measure diffusion over time or the nature of the networks over which knowledge of an innovation is diffused. However, this research does examine the “first knowledge” of innovations by measuring perceptions about them, and seeks to establish a baseline of data about early adopters for comparison to later adopters in future research.

The social system within which an innovation diffuses is defined both by the researcher and by the innovation being studied. The social system for an innovation such as radio might include all individuals on the planet, but would necessarily be limited in scope by the researcher. An innovation such as automation in automobile manufacturing would be limited by the social systems to which that innovation is relevant. This research pinpoints the social system of American public radio broadcasters, and the innovation of podcasting. American public radio broadcasters represent a social system in that they “are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal” (Rogers, 2003, p. 23) as they struggle with technical, political and fiscal challenges to provide news, information and entertainment programming to all Americans. Public radio broadcasters also share communication structures, such as the Direct Access Communication System (or DACS) of the Public Radio Satellite System, and communication networks of working groups, boards of national organizations, and conferences, which allow informal leaders to emerge. These leaders can influence opinion, ultimately influencing adoption decisions. 31 Attributes of innovations

Rogers describes an innovation as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption …. If an idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 12), regardless of whether or not it is newly developed. Key to understanding why an innovation is or is not adopted is the user’s perception of the characteristics of the innovation, and how these attributes encourage or inhibit adoption (Teng, Grover & Güttler, 2002; Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). The study at hand is concerned with how units of adoption – in this case, public radio stations – perceive the characteristics of the innovation that podcasting represents to the industry.

No two innovations will have the same technological attributes as each innovation solves different problems and creates other new issues with its implementation

(Damanpour, 1987). Rather, characteristics of an innovation refer to broad attributes that help researchers to understand the adopter’s experience with an innovation. Over the course of four decades of research, Rogers found that five attributes most commonly affected the adoption of innovations (2003). Similarly, Meyer and Goes found that

an organization’s assimilation of a new technology is highly dependent upon

attributes of the particular innovation in which it is embodied and upon the

attributes of the particular decision process in which it is aired. (1988, p. 916)

These attributes have been labeled relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability and complexity (Rogers, 2003). Generally, when an innovation is found to be positively related to the first four attributes, and negatively related to complexity, its chance of being adopted is higher (Rogers, 2003). 32 Relative advantage

Rogers writes, “Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea that it supercedes” (2003, p. 15). “Better” in this case can be described in a number of ways, including cost savings and convenience (Rogers,

2003). Dearing, Meyer and Kazmierczak further describe relative advantage in the case of technology transfer from universities to industry including a quality of conferring economic advantage, effectiveness and reliability (1994). Key to the understanding of relative advantage, however, is not the quantifiable characteristics of an innovation (i.e., adoption of X will save Y dollars), but instead the understanding of the user in his or her experience of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (and a great many other diffusion of innovation researchers) hypothesize that the more relative advantage is perceived by the adopter, “the more rapid its rate of adoption will be” (2003, p. 15).

Mann Bruch, Andersen and Spitzberg note that different social systems value different characteristics of innovations and that financial profitability, particularly for academic or nonprofit entities, is not a universal advantage for organizations that may value social benefit more highly (2003). Given the potential that the perception of relative advantage has to impact adoption, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: The perception of podcasting as relatively advantageous will encourage

adoption.

Compatibility

Compatibility might be understood as relative advantage at the gross (or organizational) rather than the fine (or individual) level. Where relative advantage is a subjective experience of an innovation by an individual, compatibility is measured in 33 relationship to the “values and norms of a social system” (Rogers, 2003, p. 15). Rogers hypothesizes that an innovation’s compatibility with current values and norms will speed adoption, whereas incompatibility will slow adoption (or inhibit it) because new values will have to develop for adoption to take place (2003). Summarizing an Elihu Katz conference paper from 1963, Meyer, Johnson and Ethington fold “communicability, pervasiveness, risk, and profitability” (1997, p. 116) into compatibility as well. Tornatzky and Klein further delineate compatibility into two categories comprised of the

values or norms of potential adopters or … congruence with the existing practices

of the adopters. The first interpretation implies a kind of normative or cognitive

capability (compatibility with what people think or feel about a technology),

while the second suggests a more practical or operational compatibility

(compatibility with what people do). (1982, p. 33)

Given the possibility that compatibility with values and existing practices will impact adoption, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: The perception of podcasting as compatible with existing values and

technologies will encourage adoption.

Trialability

Also encouraging adoption is the attribute of trialability. Rogers hypothesizes that

“new ideas that can be tried on the installment plan will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that are not divisible” (2003, p. 16). Like compatibility, the gradual movement toward a new adoption for highly “trialable” innovations can speed its adoption through the reduction of risk (Rogers, 2003) in adopting the innovation.

Tornatzky and Klein relate an attribute called “divisibility” to trialability, noting, “a 34 highly divisible innovation is usually highly ‘trialable.’ However, not all ‘trialable’ innovations are divisible; a trialable innovation may simply be a relative small, easily reversible, non-radical innovation” (1982, p. 37). Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate and Kyriakidou also find in their overview of innovations in service organizations that

“innovations with which the intended users can experiment on a limited basis are adopted and assimilated more easily” (2004, p. 596). Experimentation and trialability are examined under the proposed hypothesis:

H3: The perception of podcasting as easy to try will encourage adoption.

Observability

Many studies have found trialability to be closely related to observability

(Driscoll & Dupagne, 2005; Hurt & Hibbard, 1989; Meyer, Johnson & Ethington, 1997).

While trialability posits that potential adopters may learn by “doing” with an innovation, observability refers to adoption units’ ability to learn by “seeing” the outcomes of adoption. Wejnert found that observability could be facilitated by showing the outcomes of adoption at other entities in one’s social system (2002). Rogers hypothesizes that highly observable innovations, such as solar water-heaters (with their large panels), are more visible and therefore stimulate more discussion of their potential benefits than less visible innovations, like home computers (2003). Wejnert also notes that “learning through such observation lowers the risk of adoption by eliminating novelty or uncertainty of outcomes” (2002, p. 304). This observation can be facilitated actively, as

Greenhalgh et al. note that “if the benefits of an innovation are visible to intended adopters, it will be adopted more easily … initiatives to make more visible the benefits of an innovation (e.g., through demonstrations) increase the likelihood of their assimilation” 35 (2004, p. 596). Given the potential for observability to encourage adoption, the hypothesis is proposed:

H4: The perception that the advantages of podcasting are easy to observe will

encourage adoption.

Complexity

Complexity, the final attribute described by Rogers, is different from the other attributes in that it has been shown to negatively affect adoption. According to Rogers,

“new ideas that are simpler to understand are adopted more rapidly than innovations that require the adopter to develop new skills and new understandings” (2003, p. 16). Aubert and Hamel found that “the more users think the innovation is difficult to integrate into their daily practices, the slower its adoption will be” (2001, p. 881); they go on to cite

Moore and Benbasat (1991) who more aptly name complexity “ease of use.” In this sense, complexity is much like compatibility – if a new idea is not compatible with current beliefs, values or practices, the innovation requires not just the learning associated with mastering the innovation, but also the learning associated with developing a new value or normative procedure. Teng, Grover and Güttler observe that “there is a general pattern of positive relationships between the compatibility level of an [information technology] and its eventual saturation level, and a negative relationship between extent of complexity and saturation” (2002, p. 24).

Mann Bruch, Andersen and Spitzberg found that complexity was related to communications channels. “Specifically, perceived complexity decreases as social system members speak more positively and individuals receive more favorable mass media exposure between the innovation development and innovation implementation phase of 36 diffusion” (2003, p. 6). Their results further show that the perception of complexity made potential adopters neglect to seek clarifying information or actively seek negative information (Mann Bruch, Andersen & Spitzberg, 2003).

Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed to deal with the attribute of complexity:

H5: The perception of podcasting as not complex will encourage adoption.

Other perceived attributes

While these five attributes are succinct and have been demonstrated to predict anywhere from 49 to 87 percent of variance in the rate of adoption of new innovations

(Rogers, 2003), Rogers suggests keeping “an open mind toward other possible attributes that may be important in a specific situation for a particular set of individuals adopting a unique set of innovations” (Rogers, 2003, p. 226). Indeed, other researchers have found a number of factors other than those that Rogers describes, though only in a limited context. Chyi and Lasora (1999) cite Roger Fidler’s 1997 reference to a “familiarity” attribute in which new media that are more similar to older media are more likely to be adopted. In a conference paper presented to the International Communication Association in 2005, Paul Driscoll and Michel Dupagne describe research by Lyman Ostlund (1974) that measured “perceived risk,” and research by Carolyn Lin (1998) that added

“perceived resources,” to Rogers’ list of five attributes. “Perceived risk” refers to economic and psychological risk associated with adopting a new innovation, and is hypothesized to negatively affect adoption. “Perceived resources” describes “one’s perception of the product’s intrinsic value [as different from] its actual monetary cost” 37 (Lin, 1998, p. 98), and refers to an adopting unit’s inclination to adopt based on the resources available and perception of the product.

Perceived resources might also be construed as “cost” – both fiscal and opportunity. Cost is one of 10 factors listed by Tornatzky and Klein in their 1982 meta- analysis of diffusion research. In addition to the five attributes proposed by Rogers,

Tornatzky and Klein attribute cost, communicability, divisibility, profitability and social approval to increased adoption (1982). They propose that, ideally, studies of attributes of innovations should “predict, rather than simply explain in a post-hoc fashion, the critical events of the phenomenon” (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982, p. 29). Because of overlap between these characteristics (Teng, Grover & Güttler, 2002), this study does not seek to isolate each attribute and its affect on adoption. It will, however, strive to fulfill other ideal diffusion study conditions noted by Tornatzky and Klein, as originally proposed by

Downs and Mohr (1976). These recommendations include studying innovations as they diffuse, rather than after the fact, designing a data collection instrument that is amenable to statistical replicability, studying adoption at the organizational (rather than individual) level, and measuring several characteristics of the innovation studied (Downs & Mohr,

1976). 38 Chapter 3: Methodology and Results Methodology

Chapter 1 of this paper proposes the following research questions:

RQ1: Who in public radio is using or planning to use podcasting?

RQ2: What factors encourage or impede the adoption of podcasting?

RQ3: How does the perception of podcasting affect its adoption by stations?

These questions are designed to develop a better understanding of how public radio stations are approaching the burgeoning technology of podcasting, using the framework of diffusion of innovations theory. Chapter 2 proposes the following hypotheses related to perceptions of podcasting in the public radio system:

H1: The perception of podcasting as relatively advantageous will encourage

adoption.

H2: The perception of podcasting as compatible with existing technologies will

encourage adoption.

H3: The perception of podcasting as not complex will encourage adoption.

H4: The perception of podcasting as easy to try will encourage adoption.

H5: The perception that the advantages of podcasting are easy to observe will

encourage adoption.

To test the hypotheses, an online survey was created (see Appendix) using the

SurveyGold application. The survey included 50 questions and was informed by an earlier qualitative instrument distributed to a sample of 13 public broadcasting stations that had implemented podcasting. The wording of the scales was influenced in part by previous designs measuring perceptions of technology (i.e., Lippert & Forman, 2005). 39 The instrument was designed to match the specific attributes related to podcasting, per

Rogers:

Some diffusion scholars want to utilize existing scale items already developed by

other investigators, but the present author generally discourages this approach in

favor of creating new scale items for each set of innovations to be adopted by a

particular set of individuals. The specific ways in which the five attributes are

expressed differs in each study, and so the measures of these attributes should be

uniquely created afresh in each investigation. (p. 225, 2005)

Survey design

The first section of the survey asked for information about the respondent and his or her station, including his or her role at the station, the station’s geographical location and station class size, and affiliations and format, e.g. the “biographical” information.

The first section also asked respondents to classify their station’s approach to adopting new innovations, to approximate the adopter categories3 of diffusion theory.

The second section asked what online media the respondents’ stations had adopted, and collected information about podcasting plans at the station. The final section of the instrument included 30 statements that were used to measure respondents’ perceptions of podcasting. Statements were answered using a five-point Likert scale of

“strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neutral or no opinion,” “agree” and “strongly agree.”

These statements drew on the five perceived characteristics established by diffusion theory4 and were designed to determine whether or not podcasting was being implemented successfully because of its perceived characteristics, or was not being

3 Innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards 4 Relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability and complexity 40 implemented because of perceived characteristics. The researcher developed the statements after a reading of the industry press about podcasting.

Recruiting participants

Survey participants were recruited via two mechanisms – email and phone. An initial recruitment email was sent to all (approximately 380) of the CPB-qualified public radio stations in May 2006. Email addresses of general managers were obtained from a publicly available directory of public radio stations. The email, addressed to station managers, included a summary of the research being conducted, consent information and a request that manager forward the survey information to the person in their organization best versed in podcasting (see Appendix A). A follow-up email was sent in June 2006 and a second in August 2006.

In September 2006 a second recruiting mechanism was employed. The URL http://www.publicradiosurvey.org was registered for the project. A random sample of 130 stations was drawn from the universe of stations that had not responded to the survey.

The principle investigator used station websites to find up-to-date phone numbers for the stations in the new random sample and phoned the stations to speak with or leave a message for the person at the station responsible for the website. Stations that had no website, or that did not answer the phone after two calls were removed from the sample and new stations were drawn from the universe and called. These two methods, plus a notice in the online edition of the public broadcasting newspaper Current, produced a response rate of 28 percent (n=107) of the universe of 380 stations. Of the respondents,

35 percent had a title that referred to website maintenance or online content management. 41 The remaining 65 percent had titles that indicated that they were general managers, program directors, operations directors or lower level management.

Results: RQ1

In answer to the research question “Who in public radio is using or planning to use podcasting?” statements related to the station’s network affiliations, size, format and inclination to adopt innovations were analyzed using cross tabulation and a Chi-square test in SPSS. A significant (p<. 05) relationship was found between NPR affiliates and podcasting, indicating that stations that belong to the NPR network are more likely to have implemented podcasting in some capacity than stations that do not belong to the

NPR network.

TABLE 3.1: Cross tabulation

NPR (n=90) Not NPR (n=17) Not podcasting 33 (37%) 11 (65%) Podcasting 57 (63%) 6 (35%)

TABLE 3.2: Chi-square tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-square 4.643* 1 .031 N of Valid Cases 107

* 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. Minimum expected count is 6.99.

No significant relationship was found between membership in the Pacifica radio network and likelihood to adopt podcasting. Nor was there a relationship between stations that were affiliated with sister television stations (joint licensees) or stations that were affiliated with educational institutions. Stations that included news and talk in their 42 programming were found to be slightly more likely than music-only stations to engage in podcasting, but not at a statistically significant level.

Stations’ inclination to innovate or adopt recent innovations was measured by asking respondents to select the statement that they felt best applied to their station:

• We frequently develop and pioneer new technologies in the public radio system.

• We are quick to study new ideas. Our decision to implement technologies affects

the decisions of other station.

• We carefully study new ideas and implement them after a few others in the public

radio system have successfully tried them.

• We often wait to implement new technologies until it is clear that they will be

financially beneficial; this sometimes puts us behind others in the system.

• Fiscal prudence mandates that we implement a new technology only when we are

certain that it will benefit us, or when not implementing it will cause us to lose

money. We are generally technologically behind others in the system.

The above statements correspond with the five categories of adopters – innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards – outlined in Rogers’ Diffusion of

Innovations. By identifying their station with one of the statements, respondents gave insight into the internal decision-making processes and priorities of their respective stations. This classification scheme is susceptible to the usual problems of self-reporting, such as the potential for respondents to select the most socially favorable answer.

However, when analyzed, the results produced a bell distribution, similar to the distribution outlined by Rogers in Diffusion of Innovations (2003), with a skew toward early adoption: 43

FIGURE 3.1: Distribution of adopter categories

Using the self-reported data from the survey instrument, respondents were also

distributed across the five categories in a curve that peaked with the middle categories:

TABLE 3.3: Distribution of respondents

Innovators 13.1% Early adopters 15% Early majority 46.7% Late majority 17.8% Laggards 6.5%

A significant relationship was found between stations that classified themselves as innovators and early adopters and adoption of podcasting. The inverse was also true; stations that classified themselves as a laggards or late majority were more likely to have not adopted podcasting. Beyond illustrating that podcasting fits within the diffusion model that Rogers established, this result suggests that the adoption of podcasting (and such characteristics as NPR membership that predicted adoption) may serve as a 44 predictor of the adoption of other innovations in public radio. Digital radio looms on the horizon for public radio stations and comparisons to podcasting may illuminate the diffusion trajectory of this innovation with a better understanding of the mindset of station-adopters.

Results: RQ2 and RQ3

Responses to the Likert statements were analyzed with principal component factor analysis in SPSS using Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. The rotation converged in seven iterations. Factors that were associated with each other in some way

“loaded” together on the same component because of underlying mathematical similarities discerned by SPSS. To analyze the results, the Likert statements that loaded at above .600 on a component were associated with that component, as long as the statement did not load above .400 for any other component. Statements that did not meet these criteria were discarded. The Likert statements fell into the following components

(see Appendix B for rotated component matrix):

45 TABLE 3.4: Varimax rotation

Component Variable Load 1 Q20 Podcasting is beneficial to a station's bottom line. .695 Q21 Podcasting is compatible with my station's mission. .703 Q26 Podcasting is compatible with public radio's mission. .776 Q31 Podcasting would be valuable to our listeners. .800 Q35 I am reluctant to implement podcasting because it may fragment our audience. –.710 Q45 Podcasting is not different enough from streaming or other ways of providing –.678 digital audio to bother implementing. Q49 If podcasting doesn't work out after a few tries, we're willing to pass on it. –.665 2 Q22 Podcasting is complex to understand and implement. –.846 Q23 It's easy to try out podcasting before implementing it wholesale. .718 Q24 Based on what I've seen at other stations, podcasting isn't that difficult. .760 Q38 Podcasting is inherently easy to experiment with. .737 Q39 I have a good idea of what all of the components of podcasting are. .655 3 Q36 Implementing podcasting is similar to other digital implementations that we .666 have made in the past. Q48 Our staff understands why our station would want to begin podcasting. .765 4 Q29 My knowledge of other stations' podcasting plans and efforts affects my .643 thoughts about implementing it. Q46 Podcasting will be easier once more stations are doing it. .696 5 Q32 More technical personnel, or people with different skills, are needed to .616 implement podcasting at a station. Q40 We need adequate underwriter support to pursue podcasting. .619

Discussion: RQ1

The results of the cross tabulation indicate that stations that are affiliated with the

NPR network are more likely to engage in podcasting. This finding is consistent with findings from the diffusion literature that adoption is more likely to occur at organizations that are part of professional associations or networks that share information

(Newell & Swann, 1995). NPR has been active in encouraging experimentation with podcasting through its promotion of the podcast directory and by creating podcast-only shows as an incentive to listeners (Janssen, 2005).

That stations would follow in the footsteps of this industry leadership organization is not surprising; nor is the result that stations in the less well-funded and more loosely organized Pacifica network are not as likely to podcast. NPR, with its cornerstone news magazines All Things Considered and Morning Edition, is a more 46 dominant network than Pacifica, which is composed of community and college broadcasters with few full-time programming or development staff. Following the theory, larger, better-funded entities would have greater flexibility in innovating or learning about new innovations and subsequent adoption (Fennell, 1984; Greenhalgh et al., 2004;

Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981).

This logic might have indicated that a significant relationship would be found between stations operated by or located at universities and colleges, because of the networking benefits and “innovation incubator” capacity of academic communities.

There are several possibilities for failing to find such a relationship. While podcasting is not an expensive technology to pursue, it does require an investment of staff time to plan and execute implementation. Perhaps university stations as a whole are not funded, or with their development and fundraising handled by university departments, not as well- staffed as well as their counterparts in the non-university community. Many university stations are funded significantly by their educational institutions (Avery & Stavitsky,

2000); this may translate to more secure finances, but tighter margins. Another possibility is that university stations are not pursuing podcasting because of still-muddied legal waters. Music podcasting is not yet widely practiced because of copyright limitations

(Didden, ND). Perhaps this group of stations’ university benefactors have encouraged caution to reduce the potential of litigation.

Litigation comes into play when examining the adoption behavior of stations that broadcast music exclusively. An interesting finding resulted from classifying the stations by their programming type. Respondents that included more than two hours of news or talk programming were counted among those stations that had an integrated schedule. Of 47 the remaining broadcasters, 11 “music-only” stations indicated that they did offer some form of podcasting. Currently, podcasts cannot include copyrighted music without licensing both the recording and the underlying composition of the song (Didden, ND).

No process has yet been put in place to make licensing easier, cheaper or more streamlined for podcasters or public broadcasters. Therefore, if these 11 stations are indeed podcasting their music broadcast content, they have either negotiated with each publisher and copyright holder that they broadcast, or (more likely) stand in violation of the Copyright Protection Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1999

(Didden, ND). Follow-up on this question is warranted in future research to determine how music podcasters are managing the difficult task of clearing works, and to determine if broadcasters are knowingly in violation of the law.

No significant relationship was found between a station’s cross-licensing with a public television station and likelihood to podcast. This relationship will be one to continue to monitor as video podcasting becomes more common. Completing the transition to digital broadcasting may encourage more stations to adopt video podcasting in order to make new digital content available in the most possible platforms. By multi- purposing content across platforms, stations can increase their reach to constituencies that may have access to one platform (such as digital television) but not another (such as broadband Internet). Reaching broader constituencies allows stations to further fulfill their public service missions and to increase the base of potential members. Thus the potential for a multiplying effect exists; greater service to more people translates to more members, which creates greater revenue for more service. 48 When indicating their approach to adopting new innovations, the majority of respondents were in accord with the statement “We carefully study new ideas and implement them after a few others in the public radio system have successfully tried them.” The classification scheme puts these respondents in the “early majority” category.

According to Rogers,

The early majority adopt new ideas just before the average members of a system.

The early majority interact frequently with their peers, but seldom hold positions

of opinion leadership in a system … They provide interconnectedness in the

system’s interpersonal networks. The early majority are one of the most numerous

adopter categories, making up one third of all members of a system. (2003, p.

284)

While nearly a half of the stations surveyed identified as early majority (Rogers found only one third), it follows that many stations would fall into a category known for disseminating information and connecting members of a system. As communication entities in a loosely organized system, public radio stations are nodes of a network by default. Inter-station relationships and communications offer opportunities to be exposed to innovations and to spread those innovations further through deliberate study and adoption. Program content in the public radio system is distributed via satellite connection, and industry news (and gossip) is spread through online bulletin boards, which interconnect public radio stations (Avery & Stavitsky, 2000). This even distribution of contact gives stations a chance to discuss and disseminate news, and creates wider familiarity with innovations. 49 The nature of public radio funding also offers clues as to why respondents were more heavily distributed to innovator and early adopter categories than in Rogers’ distribution. Beyond the constraints of noncommercial broadcasting, competitive federal grant programs intended to reach unserved and underserved audiences make up a part of the equipment budget for many public radio stations (Avery & Stavitsky, 2000).

Programs like PTFP particularly value innovativeness when funding projects that do not directly extend broadcast reach or capability:

NTIA [The National Telecommunication and Information Administration]

possesses the discretionary authority to recommend awarding grants to eligible

non-broadcast applicants whose proposals are unique or innovative [emphasis

added] and which address demonstrated and substantial community needs (e.g.,

service to the blind or deaf and non-broadcast projects offering educational or

instructional services). (CFR 15, Part 2301, 1996, p. 57966)

This tendency toward innovativeness subsequently accounts for fewer respondents falling into Rogers’ late majority and laggard categories. Stations with a track record of failing to adopt new innovations would likely be less proactive in seeking funding from foundations for innovative service and projects, and would appear to be less viable in the system. Using evolution as a metaphor, stations that fail to evolve would also fail to survive. However, it follows that some laggards and late majority adopters would remain in the system given the constantly changing financial situations faced by rural stations, stations without state support, and stations with state support that come under political pressure (Avery & Stavitsky, 2000). 50 Discussion: RQ2 and RQ3

Upon analysis, the Likert statements were found to cluster in a way that challenged the initial design of the survey (i.e., each statement is not firmly associated with a component). Nevertheless the factors do still follow lines established by previous attributes of innovations research. In the tradition of other researchers who have found attributes of innovations that differ from the five outlined by Rogers (Aubert & Hamel,

2001; Lin, 1998; Tornatzky & Klein, 1982), three of Rogers’ traditional perceived attributes were found, while two others differ from those found by Rogers. This indicates that three traditional factors, and two new or less common factors, could be acting on the perception of podcasting, which in turn, according to diffusion theory, acts on adoption.

The two “new” factors are characterized here as “propositions” and are recommended for further examination in studies of new technology and public media.

Factor 1: Compatibility

The following statements loaded on the first component, and compose the factor of “compatibility.”

1. Podcasting is beneficial to a station's bottom line.

2. Podcasting is compatible with my station's mission.

3. Podcasting is compatible with public radio's mission.

4. Podcasting would be valuable to our listeners.

5. (Negative) I am reluctant to implement podcasting because it may fragment our

audience.

6. (Negative) Podcasting is not different enough from streaming or other ways of

providing digital audio to bother implementing. 51 7. (Negative) If podcasting doesn't work out after a few tries, we're willing to pass

on it.

Public radio stations are tasked both with fulfilling their legal obligations as noncommercial broadcasters, and with fulfilling their ideological missions as public entities. Stations manage these twin obligations in a variety of ways, always with a mind to the needs of their constituencies – listeners who are left behind by traditional radio, and listeners seeking civic information. Therefore it is not unusual that statements two and three above would load together, along with the first statement about station finances.

For the ever financially-strained public radio station, fiscal responsibility is a part of the mission. Listener service, and providing value to listeners (as in the fourth statement), also match the public radio mission as noncommercial stations set themselves apart from commercial broadcasters with community responsive content. In many cases, stations establish their value by being the only station in a market broadcasting from local facilities (Public Radio Capital, ND).

The next statements of this factor loaded negatively, meaning that respondents felt the inverse of the statements was true. The fifth statement could be made negative in two ways – broadcasters were either not reluctant to implement podcasting because of fragmentation, or were not concerned about fragmentation. Either way, the audience- orientation of public broadcasters is consistent with the mission of public radio to serve the community for which it is chartered. Fears of fragmentation could be dispelled in a number of ways. Podcasting allow stations to time-shift material that is scheduled at inopportune times, opening the potential for a wider audience for that content. Podcasting also extends the reach of stations, allowing listeners to “take their station with them,” 52 even when they leave a market. In this sense, podcasting can give stations a wider community of stakeholders, spread out geographically, who can continue their membership with their old stations, even as they build relationships with new stations.

The inverse of the sixth and seventh statements relates to public broadcasting’s history of leading its commercial counterparts technologically, particularly in implementing satellite interconnection and online learning tools (Avery & Stavitsky,

2000). While innovativeness is not part of a codified mission for public broadcasting, it has developed as the way stations remain relevant as new technologies and political climates alter the landscape of broadcasting. Stations are also encouraged to innovate by the funding stream that flows through PTFP. That public radio broadcasters would indicate that podcasting is a uniquely relevant technology (statement six) and one that is worth pursuing to the fullest extent (statement seven), is compatible with the innovative nature of public broadcasting.

Factor 2: Complexity and trialability

The following statements loaded on the second component, and are arrayed as a

“complexity and trialability” factor:

1. (Negative) Podcasting is complex to understand and implement.

2. It's easy to try out podcasting before implementing it wholesale.

3. Based on what I've seen at other stations, podcasting isn't that difficult.

4. Podcasting is inherently easy to experiment with.

5. I have a good idea of what all of the components of podcasting are.

53 Respondents disagreed with the first statement, indicating that they found podcasting not to be complex, either cognitively or in practice. The second and third statements, initially designed to uncover trialability and observability respectively, give an indication as to why respondents might not find podcasting complex, and confirms other research that shows these attributes to be interconnected (Rogers, 2003). Podcasting is accessible for trials and limited implementation, and is being applied in such a fashion across the system that anxiety associated with it is minimized. The fourth statement further bolsters the idea that podcasting is simple to conduct trials with, while the fifth statement shows an understanding of the make-up of podcasting, downplaying the difficulty of fitting together the “moving parts” of the technology.

While these statements may independently be associated with Rogers’ attributes of complexity, trialability and observability, their merging in this analysis suggests that for public broadcasters, these three perceptions are not finely differentiated. A similar merging of observability and trialability has been found throughout the literature

(Driscoll & Dupagne, 2005; Hurt & Hibbard, 1989; Meyer, Johnson & Ethington, 1997).

Complexity may enter into this factor because of the way that the statements were written or because of the small sample size. Folding these three attributes into one combined attribute could lose some degree of granularity, but given the context of the findings, perhaps gives insight into the thinking of public broadcasters. Complex systems, that cannot be taken apart or tinkered with without negative consequences, require greater commitment on the part of the adopter. Podcasting, it appears, is not perceived to fit this profile by adopters. 54 Factor 3: Relative advantage

1. Implementing podcasting is similar to other digital implementations that we have

made in the past.

2. Our staff understands why our station would want to begin podcasting.

These statements comprise the factor of relative advantage because of their relationship to the need for stations to understand innovations within a context before adopting them. Tornatzky and Klein called relative advantage the “garbage pail characteristic in innovation characteristic studies into which any of a number of innovation characteristics are dumped” (1982). While it is true that it is difficult to measure advantageousness over current practices without measuring the perceived advantageousness of existing practices, relative advantage does offer some standard bases for comparison, namely economic factors (Rogers, 2003).

First, relative advantage can be shown, as it factors out here, in relationship to current practices or tools. In comparing podcasting to current technologies, such as websites and Internet streaming, broadcasters come to the adoption decision prepared with a baseline of knowledge about the benefits of Internet technology. Familiarity with similar innovations reduces risk related to adoption, and reduced risk makes adoption a less expensive proposition. For stations that have little flexibility in their budgets for failed investment, knowing that podcasting is similar to other successful implementations for publicizing the station and growing membership (such as online giving tools) increases the perception that podcasting is an advantageous adoption.

Relative advantage can also be weighed socially, giving some innovations more cache than existing practices or systems (Rogers, 2003). In this circumstance, knowledge 55 about an innovation across an organization can facilitate a positive impression of the technology and increase the likelihood of adoption. The results here show that respondents understood the value of making knowledge about podcasting available across departments so that the innovation could be integrated into multiple workflows

(promotions, distribution, information technology).

Suggestions for future study

Proposition 1: Social approval/communicability

1. My knowledge of other stations' podcasting plans and efforts affects my thoughts

about implementing it.

2. Podcasting will be easier once more stations are doing it.

In Tornatzky and Klein’s 1982 meta-analysis of diffusion studies, the perception of “social approval” and “communicability” was tracked by some studies.

Communicability is similar to observability but differs in that benefits of innovations can be communicated without being demonstrated or observed directly (Tornatzky & Klein,

1982). The analysis found that while several studies had reported a relationship between the perception of communicability and adoption, the studies lacked a statistically replicable relationship (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). Studies measuring social approval, or increased social status after adoption, also lacked significant statistical data (Tornatzky &

Klein, 1982).

The presence of these two factors in the literature indicates that there may be greater granularity to Rogers’ categories of perceived attributes of innovations, or attributes that are found only for certain innovations and industries. The two statements above comprise this posited category because they relate to a “community” effect on 56 adoption. Further examination of this proposition could be conducted by studying how entrenched in various networks stations are (for example, how many program providers do stations buy content from), in order to gauge the likelihood of stations to adopt innovations. Stations that are well-networked might be more innovative, or more inclined to adopt innovations early, given their access to a wider array of opinions about those innovations. Stations that are less connected to their peers might strive to buck that assessment by consciously initiating campaigns to provide more innovative service.

Future research designs measuring the impact of perceptions of innovations on adoption should bear in mind the potential of networks and community pressure to encourage adoption.

Proposition 2: Cost

1. More technical personnel, or people with different skills, are needed to implement

podcasting at a station.

2. We need adequate underwriter support to pursue podcasting.

Tornatzky and Klein (1982) also found a number of studies that looked at cost as an impediment or facilitator of adoption. Intuitively, cost would be negatively related to adoption (more expensive innovations are less likely to be adopted) but Tornatzky and

Klein found the results, though not significant, were split nearly evenly between a positive and negative effect on adoption. Rogers notes that with some innovations, cost is inconsequential if the status of the innovation is high, or if the innovation can deter rare but dramatic contingencies (such as with hospitals adopting CAT scan machines despite a low demand for this type of imaging in their area) (2003). 57 By being clustered together, these statements give insight into perceptions related to the cost of implementing an innovation at public radio stations. Actual costs associated with implementing podcasting include staff time to edit and post material, and online storage and bandwidth. While underwriting is useful to obtain these resources and to assign staff time to these tasks, underwriting also confirms a project’s legitimacy with funder-stakeholders, who can pull support from controversial programs, effectively canceling them despite operating outside of the station’s autonomous programming authority. Assessing stations’ perceptions of the importance of underwriting support in adopting innovations could yield interesting results that would speak to the nature of funder involvement in public broadcasting programming decisions. More research into the relationship between funders, staffing decisions and technology implementations is warranted, using both quantitative methodologies (such as analysis of expenditures, receipts and programming decisions) and quantitative methodologies (such as interviewing station management).

Hypotheses

Given the evidence discussed above, the following hypotheses are supported by the data generated by the survey instrument:

H1: The perception of podcasting as relatively advantageous will encourage

adoption.

H2: The perception of podcasting as compatible with existing technologies will

encourage adoption.

58 Moderate support is found for the following hypotheses, which merged together into a single factor that registered both complexity and trialability:

H3: The perception of podcasting as not complex will encourage adoption.

H4: The perception of podcasting as easy to try will encourage adoption.

The final hypothesis, related to observability, was not supported by the results:

H5: The perception that the advantages of podcasting are easy to observe will

encourage adoption.

Limitations

This study is limited by several factors. Low response rate and the instrument design both hampered sophisticated statistical analysis. A larger response rate could have been achieved with a longer and more aggressive recruitment campaign but the time restrictions prevented a longer data collection period. Additionally, the bulk of the data collection was conducted during the summer months, a time when vacations, conferences and planning for upcoming pledge drives distracted many respondents from participating.

The initial recruitment approach, via email, yielded poor initial results. In working with this community in the future, direct contact via telephone is recommended.

The instrument, created specifically for this project, would have benefited from more extensive pilot testing. An initial qualitative questionnaire was used to develop the quantitative instrument; testing the quantitative instrument itself could have led to refinements through respondent feedback. This approach was not taken, however, because of the limited pool of respondents and the concern that fatigue would set in from 59 repeated recruitment messages.5 Information gathered about stations’ characteristics, such as licensee class and city and state of licensure, provided some insight into the potential adopter of podcasting in public radio, but a larger pool of “biographic” data could have provided a larger basis for comparison. As it is, respondents often left blank or gave unanticipated answers to questions about license type and station format. Better categories for choice, refined through pilot testing, may have led to higher response rates for individual questions.

Part of this incomplete data collection may have been due to soliciting only one response from each station. The expediencies of data collection required that one respondent type be chosen for each station; the initial phase of data collection attempted to recruit responses from general managers. After this strategy failed to produce results, the focus was shifted to webmasters, who turned out to often have responsibility for podcasting operations and who were generally eager to discuss their efforts (though they unfortunately often had less access to other station operation information).

Had multiple respondents per station been solicited (i.e., from both the general manager of the station and the webmaster), analysis might have produced conflicting results. This conflict itself would have provided interesting fodder, but is outside of the scope of this research. Future research might examine how perceptions of innovations differ within organizations in order to draw conclusions about how unified or dissonant organizational perspectives impact adoption.

5 As the recruitment process for this study wound down, other research about American podcasters, conducted by Philip Niemann at the University of Trier in Germany, was beginning. Some respondents noted that they had been contacted for both this study and the study from the University of Trier. 60 A final limitation of this study was the necessity that it focus so narrowly on one facet of diffusion of innovations theory. Responses between adopters and non-adopters of podcasting could largely not be compared due to a lack of statistical significance stemming from low response rates. However, examining the perceptions of public radio stations as a group, without differentiating between adopters and non-adopters, also has benefits. First, it holds off charges of pro-innovation bias in this research. The perceptions of those who have adopted podcasting, along with the perceptions of those who have not, are weighed together, rather than as post- and pre-adopters. The possibility that stations whose perceptions were measured here might never adopt podcasting looms.

In the case of these stations, learning about their perceptions of a technology is only the first step into understanding their adoption/rejection process. Future steps include examining their organizational culture, their relationship to the institutions of public broadcasting, and their contacts with other organizations.

Because this research focused simply on the perception of innovations, other critical elements of diffusion, such as diffusion over time and diffusion through social networks, was neglected. Carrying out a complete diffusion study, however, is in essence a backward looking proposition. At the outset of the use of podcasting, plotting adoption along the S-curve found by Tarde and then Rogers (Rogers, 2003), can only happen in real time. It also carries with it the risk of “rooting” for the innovation to take hold. This research avoids these methodological pitfalls by laying down a baseline of perceptions within the public radio system that might foster future study of the implementation of digital technologies. 61 Summary

The findings of this paper are meant to benefit the public broadcasting industry in its continuing struggle to provide service to underserved audiences. The media reform movement in the United States often calls upon public broadcasting to reinvigorate public debate and bolster democratic movements (McChesney, 1999). Technologies that extend the reach of public broadcasting can offer some assistance in this endeavor, though structural change that gives public broadcasting’s role in public life ample recognition and funding, without partisan content restrictions, is the system’s most pressing need.

This research does not have access to the tools of structural reform. It does, however, provide tools to help the developers of new information technologies refine their innovations, and provide groundwork for further study of the impact and effectiveness of adoption in the public radio system. The next chapter of this discussion centers on how podcasting can be implemented in the public radio system, with special focus on the proposal of a pilot program charging for podcasting. The revenue potential inherent in podcasting will not, in itself, preserve the public broadcasting system for future generations of citizens. Proactive attitudes and measured risk-taking will be a positive step, however, and it is this approach that the following chapter recommends. 62 Chapter 4: Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

Though this research lacks a longitudinal component and cannot fully discern the diffusion curve of the innovation of podcasting, answers to the research questions can be outlined. In response to the first research question, “who in public radio is using or planning to use podcasting?,” this research demonstrates that stations which belong to the

NPR network are beginning to embrace the technology. Conversely, stations that are affiliated with education institutions have not yet begun to podcast in significant numbers. And, in keeping with diffusion of innovations theory, stations that self-identify as early adopters of new technologies have embraced podcasting and are implementing it in a variety of ways to serve a variety of needs.

In answer to the second research question, “what factors encourage or impede the adoption of podcasting?,” it has been found that the idea of podcasting as complex, and difficult to try out before implementing is perceived negatively. Accordingly it is expected that stations with the perception of podcasting as complex will decline to adopt.

The third research question, “how does the perception of podcasting affect its adoption by stations?,” cannot be answered completely at this time because of a lack of long term data. However, factor analysis did determine that relative advantage and compatibility will be an issue for stations making the adoption decision about podcasting. Further, diffusion of innovation theory indicates that if stations perceive podcasting to have these 63 characteristics (i.e., it is relatively advantageous to existing technology and is compatible with current practices) then adoption will take place.

With these conclusions in mind, a proposal follows. Stations have expressed an interest in podcasting as a technology, both on the data collection instrument and in informal communications related to this research. Yet a uniform model to maximize station benefit and extend the reach of podcasts to more users has not developed. With diffusion theory noting that technologies that are relatively advantageous and compatible with existing practices and beliefs are more likely to be adopted, the following section recommends using the metaphor of membership, a current concept in the public radio system, to advance podcasting adoption. And because NPR membership was associated with likelihood to be podcasting at the moment, the proposal is framed for stations belonging to the NPR network of stations.

Podcasting and the future of public radio

Public radio stations have expressed both interest in and anxiety about podcasting.

Implementing the technology requires less of a financial commitment than it does a commitment to serving new audiences, letting go of old revenue models, and of releasing some of the controls required by traditional broadcasting. At this point in this discussion,

I would like to construct and share an approach public broadcasting should consider as it explores podcasting adoption. That researchers carry a pro-innovation bias is a constant criticism of diffusion of innovation studies (Meyer, 2004). However I am risking that assessment in order to make these results directly applicable to stations, rather than allowing this study to remain isolated in academia. As is explained below, the following 64 proposal allows ample room for podcasting to fail as a medium. Regardless of the outcome, public radio’s developing relationship with this innovation merits a close watch.

The proposal is that stations exploring podcasting adopt the aggregation model

NPR is implementing with underwriting, and take it one step further. The strategy is to apply it to another funding base: the listener. What is proposed is a fee-based “online membership” to the system’s program providers (NPR, PRI and APM) from which revenues could be spread among participating stations. This proposal has four components:

• Membership;

• Tiered levels of content;

• Protection of online content; and

• Dissemination of funds.

The advantage of such as system would be to allow stations interested in podcasting to garner the benefits of a network, and for users to be able to find high-quality products all in one place. Smaller stations that only have a few podcasts available would be able to put their programs next to the exhaustive list of programs from larger stations, as small stores in a shopping mall benefit from the pull large anchor stores have for customers.

Large stations would benefit as recognized leaders in the medium of podcasting, and would be able to leverage that recognition into new ventures. Aggregating content would also demonstrate the value of public broadcasting products, and would be an opportunity to re-brand public broadcasting for users who had abandoned the system or had never personally experienced its value. 65 Membership

The proposed strategy is to aggregate the podcasts that are currently available on the websites of stations from across the country, on iTunes and on NPR’s podcasting directory, into one mutually accessible directory. These podcasts would then be available to individuals who become “members” of the directory, either by subscribing directly to the tool, or via their membership in a local NPR station.

An online membership to such a podcast service should cost about that of a station membership. Billing the service as analogous to a station membership has pros and cons. A benefit to the subscription/online membership level being similar to the

“introductory station membership” of $35 is that it could be low enough to encourage podcast users to subscribe to both the online subscription membership and their local member station. However, if members perceived that they were “switching” their membership from their local station to that of the online subscription, they might be less inclined to pledge locally.

Going with a subscription-only plan would also forgo any revenue that might be made by selling programs on a per-episode basis. To capitalize on users not ready to commit to a subscription, the service could offer an inexpensive “download now” feature for items in the paid tier. In a commentary in Current from December 2005, Paul

Marszalek, a proponent of charging for podcasts, recommends the price of 25 cents per download (Marszalek, 2005). However, this option strays from the primary objective of recruiting greater membership in both the station and online arenas.

The subscription math could work out in stations’ favor. For example, if a user discovers that his or her favorite programs (and more) are available for free online, they 66 may be inclined to tune away from their station and “forget” to pledge. If they are a $35 member, this is a $35 loss to the station. However, if they are forced to pledge online to use the services there, and they find that these services suit their needs better, then the station, as a member of the consortium that provides podcasts, would receive a cut of that

$35. And while a cut of $35 is not preferable to the full membership sum by any means, hundreds, or even thousands, of cuts of $35 could add up to be significant.

An alternative to this system would be to make the podcasts available to any user who is a member of a local station (barring only nonmembers from the content) or any member who pledges using a credit card (thus using the content as an incentive to promptly fulfill pledges). This system would be difficult, but not impossible, to implement, though it would be an annoyance to navigate for first-time users (which could dampen adoption and its ultimate success). A database of members and some identifying information (such as email address or credit card number) could be compiled, and as users attempted to access content and are challenged by the protection, they could be routed through an “account set-up” process. This process could determine whether or not an individual is a member and either authenticate them using their membership information or offer them the chance to join their local station. Another modification of this type of model would make online products available for free to all students. This would continue the system’s legacy of education in a formal way and would also hook a younger, more technically savvy demographic into the system’s products, contributing to future membership and increased cross-platform usage. However, a program such as this would require extensive outreach to universities and school systems across the country.

An alternative to using university rolls to make the service free would be to bind the free 67 access to enrollment in some other public subsidy program, such as heating or housing assistance. This would give access to the nation’s poorest individuals, regardless of their ability to enroll in an institution of higher education.

Providing content

It is imperative that program providers understand that implementing a new technology or service takes time. While NPR’s podcasts are being touted as enormously successful at the moment (Rebbapragada, 2006), it is important to understand the context of that success. Figures from KCRW, which has approximately 600,000 terrestrial listeners and 760,000 online listeners (McBride, 2006), show that individual public radio stations are having enormous success providing their content. Yet recent Forrester

Research shows that only one percent of online households in North America regularly downloaded and listened to podcasts (Li, 2006). And of those households, the preferred use for podcasts was to “time-shift” – use existing programming at a more convenient time – rather than explore new material (Li, 2006). This figure is a sharp reality check to

Forrester’s March 2005 prediction that 12.3 million households would be using podcasting by 2010 (Schadler, 2005).

Given that podcasting is still confined to users who have both the technical savvy and broadband access to use it, program providers should wait to restrict content access through subscription. Instead, mile markers should be established. Once a program reaches a specified level of popularity it can be considered for availability via subscription. At this point of diffusion it would be more feasible to implement fees. I envision the online membership as a flat fee per month or year for a host of services. As programs gain popularity, they should be moved into a “paid” tier of availability. 68 Multiple programs will be grouped together to form tiers, so that subscriptions give users value for their money.

To control the potential reaction that program providers are stifling content by charging for it, new material should always be debuted in the “free” tier. It should be given sufficient time to build a listener base. If it never generates enough interest to reach the mile marker, it should remain free. An alternative design of the tier plan would modify it to include all programs – but instead of offering a paid tier of popular programs and a free tier of unpopular programs, content could be tiered by release date. A system like this would offer new programs to subscribers, with the programs becoming free after two weeks or a month.

There is a slight danger that the “popular/unpopular” tier system would cause listeners to engage in outside sharing of the shows. If popularity of a show triggers its movement into the paid service, popularity could be artificially depressed by creating networks for distribution outside of the NPR podcast tool (using filesharing programs).

While this is unlikely, it is a possibility and could be best avoided by thoroughly justifying the need to charge for content and keeping the cost low enough to not provoke ire.

Protecting content

Protecting the online content on the behalf of program providers would also be a challenge and require some investment. There are several reasons why it would be appropriate to protect the site of access to podcasts, rather than the files themselves. First, password protecting a web page is technologically much easier than applying encryption to an open format such as the MP3. It also bypasses the need to use proprietary formats, a 69 strategy that NPR abandoned when it did not renew its contract with Audible.com (Louis,

2005). Last, protecting the site where the programs are available, rather than the programs themselves, leaves open the possibility that files could still be downloaded and distributed to non-subscribers (via email or file-sharing). This may seem contrary to the stated goal of restricting online content to subscribers or individuals who are authorized through membership to a station, but in order to capitalize on the viral nature of Internet publicity, users should still be able to share content with their friends (following the principle that those friends will be impressed and subsequently subscribe). Protecting the material at the web page would also allow the podcast site to be temporarily

“declassified” as in the case of national emergency or other important news event such as elections coverage.

Disseminating funds

The last consideration is that of how to share funds generated by the online subscription fee. Several models are possible. The first, and broadest, would be to share the revenue equally among all stations in the system, assuming that all stations are contributing fairly equally – either in content provided or members lost to online offerings. Larger stations that provide more content such as WAMU, WNYC, and

WGBH would inevitably protest this model. Stations that provide the most content to the podcasting library would more likely prefer a model that distributes revenue proportionally, either by amount of material provided, or by popularity of downloads.

Enormously popular programs such as WNYC’s On the Media might garner a substantial share of profits in a system like this, overshadowing programs from smaller providers.

This could provide a disincentive for stations to join the collaborative, if they sensed that 70 they were “wasting” their content in a subscription arena where it might not elicit any more funding than providing it for free would (via membership). A modification would be to divide profits evenly among stations that participate in the podcasting consortium, against the wishes of more prolific stations, on the logic that all contributors contribute equally by strengthening the attractiveness of the library. This is a more compelling argument for an “all-access” subscription model, and would not be tenable if there were also a pay-per-download option available.

However, I am inclined to create a model that shares funding among all public radio stations, but perhaps label it as a trust fund or use it as a grant program for outreach or program start-ups. Because the network is currently supporting the main expense of providing this programming (the bandwidth), and podcasting is a secondary market for nearly all of the programs that are offered in this format, one could argue that profits should go back into the system to invest in growth. Stations that contribute to the podcasting directory would certainly chafe at sharing profits with stations that are not providing content, however. This objection could be quieted by creating a solution in which funds are apportioned both to a trust or content fund, and also back to content contributors, using a formula. Either way, if podcasting takes off it will undoubtedly have an impact on the system as a whole, whether stations offer it or not. Aggregating funds nationally is one way to buffer smaller stations from its tides.

With all of these issues taken into consideration, I would propose beginning a pilot subscription using the content of one of the system’s program providers, such as 71 NPR. NPR could launch the pilot using five of the most popular proprietary6 podcasts and price this limited set of programs at $5 a month, discounting to $50 for a year subscription, or making the content free to members of a local station. This price point is attractively low (the cost of five songs on iTunes). Subscription rates would be a gauge of how deleterious adding a payment component is to the growth of the program’s popularity.

Simultaneously, a central database authorization system could be pilot-tested to unlock programs for station members. Listeners brought in through the station membership route could discover the benefits of the podcasting directory – and get hooked for when it might transition to a paid service. Additionally, since none of these programs come from member stations, there can be no accusation that NPR is negatively affecting stations’ distribution of content if the subscription plan proves to be a bust. Nor would stations be required to promise exclusivity to NPR’s portal, denying access to their own content on their homepages.

Success in this program would be measured by generating revenue. As usage grows and underwriting increases, podcasting could bring in substantial revenues, but the wait could be long. This day will come sooner if an online membership-cum-subscription model is put in place, once the NPR podcast is firmly established as a quality product but before it is cemented in users’ minds as an inalienable freebie. In order for such a system to work, however, the players will need a firm conception of what their stake in the project is and what their goals are. I believe that this endeavor should be undertaken to

6 As in podcasts not produced by member stations. NPR’s in-house podcasts are among its most popular offerings. According to iTunes Top 100 podcasts On November 3, 2006, NPR’s top podcasts were Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me, Story of the Day, NPR Shuffle (a random story from one of NPR’s national news shows) and All Songs Considered. All of these programs are produced by NPR itself. 72 strengthen the stations – not the network. Success in this program will be measured by the smoothness of the transition to subscription, increases in memberships at public radio stations, greater exposure of the programs and outreach projects to more listeners, and ultimately in new initiatives born out of new revenues.

73 References

American Public Media (ND). Press. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://americanpublicmedia.publicradio.org/press/.

Avery, R. & Stavitsky, A. (2000). “Mission v. market,” in Witherspoon, J. & Kovitz, R. A history of public broadcasting. Washington, DC: Current Publishing Committee.

Aubert, B.A. & Hamel, G. (2001). Adoption of smart cards in the medical sector: The Canadian experience. Social Science and Medicine, 53, 879-894. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from the OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center.

Behrens, S., ed. (ND). Why public broadcasting? Current Online. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from http://current.org/why/.

Behrens, S. (1997, March 31). Race for digital radio is uphill from here. Current. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://www.current.org/tech/tech706.html.

Behrens, S. (2001, March 26). Pledge woes and membership slide on agenda of next PBS summit. Current. Retrieved May 24, 2006 from http://www.current.org/funding/funding0106member.html.

Behrens, S. (2006, February 21). Online quest: Shared platform, separate skins. Current. Retrieved March 5, 2006 from http://www.current.org/web/web0603omn.shtml.

Behrens, S. (2006b, July 17). NPR working with stations ‘can be much, much stronger’. Current. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://www.current.org/npr/npr0613marimowqa.shtml.

Blood, R. (2004). How blogging software reshapes the online community. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 53-55. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center.

Brown, K., Endicott, R.C., MacDonald, S., Schumann, M., Morrison, M., Raynes, M., Reader, R. & Weatherbee, L. (2006, June 26). Special report: 100 leading national advertisers. Advertising Age. Retrieved from http://adage.com/datacenter/.

CFR 15, Part 2301 (1996, November 8). Public telecommunications facilities program. Federal Register, 16(281). Retrieved November 9, 2006 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/Rules/1996rules.html#2301_4.

74 Chyi, H.S. & Lasora, D. (1999). Access, use and preference for online newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal, 20(4), 2-13. Retrieved June 14, 2006 from Communication & Mass Media Complete.

Commerce Department (ND). Press release: Commerce Department awards $283,320 to Louisiana Educational Television Authority for the WLPB-TV transmitter, Baton Rouge, LA, damaged during Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/Projects/2005/PREmerWLPB.htm.

Cooper, R.B. & Zmud, R.W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123-139. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from JSTOR.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting (2006, February). 2007-2009 CPB appropriation request and justification. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/appropriation/justification_07-09.pdf

Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675-688. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from Business Source Complete.

Dearing, J.W., Meyer, G. & Kazmierczak, J. (1994). Portraying the new: Communication between university innovators and potential users. Science Communication, 16(1), 11-42. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center.

Didden, C. (ND). Podcasting legal issues. Collegiate Broadcasters, Inc. Retrieved November 8, 2006 from http://www.collegebroadcasters.org/podcast.shtml.

Downs, G.W. & Mohr, L.B. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 700-714. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from JSTOR.

Driscoll, P. & Dupagne, M. (2005, May). First phase of a scale development project to measure perceived attributes of consumer communication technologies. Paper presented to the International Communication Association Annual Meeting, New York, NY. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from Communication & Mass Media Complete.

Egner, J. (2004, August 9). Edwards’ jump to XM renews satellite debate. Current. Retrieved May 24, 2006 from http://www.current.org/npr/npr0414satellite.shtml.

Ettlei, J., Bridges, W. & O’Keefe, R. (1984). Organizational strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682-695. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from JSTOR. 75

Farivar, C. (2005). Start your own podcast. Macworld, 22(6). Retrieved September 2005 from Academic Search Premier.

Federal Communications Commission (2001). FCC noncommercial station licensing rules. 47 CFR 73.621. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from Public Broadcasting PolicyBase at http://www.current.org/pbpb/fcc/fcc621.html.

FeedBurner (2006). Fast facts and stats. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/about#stats.

Fennell, M.J. (1984). Synergy, influence, and information in the adoption of administrative innovations. The Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 113- 129. Retrieved October 24, 2005 from JSTOR.

Fidler, R. (1997). Mediamorphosis: Understanding new media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Finn, S., Maher, J.K. & Forster, J. (2006). Indicators of information and communication technology adoption in the nonprofit sector: Changes between 2000 and 2004. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 16(3), 277-295. Retrieved October 9, 2006 from Business Source Complete.

Friess, S. (2006, April 5). Podcasting roils NPR fund raising. Wired News. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from http://www.wired.com/news/culture/media/1,70583-0.html.

Glaser, M. (2005, November 29). Will NPR’s podcasts birth a new business model for public radio? Online Journalism Review. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/051129glaser/print.htm.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P. & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from Academic Search Premier.

Hurt, H.T. & Hibbard, R. (1989). The systematic measurement of the perceived characteristics of information technologies. Communication Quarterly, 37(3), 214-222. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from Communication & Mass Media Complete.

Jaffe, H. (2006, May 9). NPR leads the way in podcasting. Washingtonian Online. Retrieved on May 9, 2006 from http://www.washingtonian.com/buzz/2006/0509.html.

76 Janssen, M. (2005, August 29). Pubradio’s stations, nets team up on podcast push. Current online. Retrieved November 9, 2006 from http://www.current.org/tech/tech0516podcast.shtml.

Janssen, M. (2005b, October 31). Audience growth stalls for public radio system. Current. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://www.current.org/audience/aud0520radio.shtml.

Janssen, M. (2006, February 21). Listeners eat up podcasts so pubradio adds lots more. Current. Retrieved March 5, 2006 from http://www.current.org/podcasts/podcasts0603.shtml.

Joiner, I. (2004, February 3). Learning Curve: What is RSS? Darwin Online for Informed Executives. Retrieved October 25, 2005 from http://www.darwinmag.com/learn/curve/.

Katz, E. (1963, August). The characteristics of innovations and the concept of compatibility. Paper presented at the Rehovoth Conference on Comprehensive Planning of Agriculture in Developing Countries, Rehovoth, Israel.

Kerbel, M. & Bloom, J. (2005). Blog for American and civic involvement. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(4), 3-27. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center.

Kimberly, J.R. & Evanisko, M.J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 689-713. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from JSTOR.

Li, C. (2006, March 28). Executive summary: Podcasting hits the charts. Forrester Research. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,38761,00.html.

Lin, C.A. (1998). Exploring personal computer adoption dynamics. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 95-112. Retrieved October 23, 2006 from Hein Online.

Lippert, S.K. & Forman, H. (2005). Utilization of information technology: Examining cognitive and experiential factors of post-adoption behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(3). Retrieved October 20, 2005 from IEEE All- Society Periodicals Package.

Louis, T. (2005, August 14). NPR defining new podcast strategy. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from http://www.tnl.net/blog/entry/NPR_defining_new_Podcast_strategy.

77 Mann Bruch, K., Andersen, P.A. & Spitzberg, B. (May 2003). Diffusion in the borderland: A study in the implementation of broadband connectivity in an ecological reserve. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from Communication & Mass Media Complete.

Marszalek, P. (2005, December 19). Podcasts: for free or not for free? Current. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://www.current.org/web/web0523podcasts.shtml.

McBride, S. (2006, October 31). Public radio goes global over the web. The Wall Street Journal, B1. Retrieved November 6, 2006 from Factiva.

McChesney, R.W. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication policy in dubious times. New York: The New Press.

Meyer, A.D. & Goes, J.B. (1988). Organizational assimilation of innovations: A multilevel contextual analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 897- 923. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from JSTOR.

Meyer, G. (2004). Diffusion methodology: Time to innovate? Journal of Health Communication, 9, 59-69. Retrieved April 5, 2006 from Academic Search Premier.

Meyer, M., Johnson, J.D. & Ethington, C. (1997). Contrasting attributes of preventive health innovations. Journal of Communication, 47(2), 112-131. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center.

Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from Business Source Complete.

National Public Radio (ND). About NPR. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://www.npr.org/about/.

National Public Radio (2000). NPR underwriting guidelines. Retrieved November 8, 2006 from the Public Broadcasting Policy Base at http://www.current.org/pbpb/documents/NPRunderwriting.html.

National Public Radio (2005, November 8). Press release: NPR doubles its podcast content to 33 titles, launching today. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://www.npr.org/about/press/051108.podcast.html.

78 Newell, S. & Swann, J. (1995). Professional associations as important mediators of the innovation process. Science Communication, 16(4), 371-387. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center.

NPR Podcast Directory (ND). Retrieved October 25, 2006 from http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_directory.php.

Ostlund, L.E. (1974). Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 23-29. Retrieved October 23, 2006 from JSTOR.

Pacifica Radio Archives (ND). History of Pacifica. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from http://www.pacificaradioarchives.org/pacifica/timeline.html.

Panepento, P. (2006, January 26). Charity podcasts: a sampler. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 18, 10-10. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from Academic Search Premier.

PBS News (2006, October 10). PBS programs now available on the iTunes store. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/news/20061010_PBSProgramsAvailableoniTunesSt ore.html.

Potter, R. (2006). “Information radio programming” in Media programming, Eastman, S.T. & Ferguson, D.A., eds. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Pubcatcher (ND). Retrieved October 25, 2006 from http://www.pubcatcher.org/.

Public Radio Capital (ND). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved October 27, 2006 from http://www.pubcap.org/faq.html.

Public Radio International (ND). Inside PRI: Fact sheet. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://www.pri.org/InPRI_FactSheet.html.

Radio Community Service Grants (ND). FY 2007 radio community service grant general provisions & eligibility criteria. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from http://www.cpb.org/grants/radiocsg/.

Rebbapragada, N. (2006, February 17). Podcasting: Behind the hype. PC World. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,124738,00.asp#.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

79 Russell, K. (2005, October 3, 2006). Podcasting. Computerworld, 39(40). Retrieved October 25, 2005 from Academic Search Premier.

Schadler, T. (2005, March 21). The future of digital audio. Forrester Research. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,36428,00.html.

Teng, J.T.C., Grover, V. & Güttler, W. (2002). Information technology innovations: General diffusion patterns and its relationships to innovation characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1). Retrieved October 20, 2005 from Academic Search Premier.

Tornatzky, L.G. & Klein, K.J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-29(1). Retrieved October 4, 2006 from ILLiad.

Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297-326. Retrieved April 20, 2006 from Academic Search Premier.

Williams, S. (2006, March 14). COOL 2 USE. Newsday, p. B02. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from LexisNexis Academic.

Wingfield, N. (2005, September 15). Apple Adds Video to its Podcasting Lineup. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 25, 2005 from Academic Search Premier.

Witherspoon, J. & Kovitz, R. (2000). “Tribal memories,” in A history of public broadcasting. Washington, DC: Current Publishing Committee. 80 Appendices

Appendix A: Podcasting at public radio stations survey Recruitment email

I am a graduate student in the public broadcasting telecommunications program at Ohio University and I am conducting research about the use of podcasting at public radio stations. I am writing to you to ask for your participation in a short Internet survey. Stations that have implemented podcasting as well as those that have not are welcome to participate.

Taking the survey will take approximately 15 minutes, and covers questions about your station, the programs that you provide online, and your impression of podcasting. If you are not the person who is best versed in your station’s strategy for implementing (or choice not to implement) podcasting, I would appreciate it if you would forward this message to that person.

If you chose to participate, your responses will be included in a database of answers from which statistics will be drawn. Identifying information will not be bound to your answers. Your station will not be identified by its name or specific location in written summaries of the research. This academic research is being conducted for my thesis, and could be used for conference presentations, scholarly journals and publication.

I would greatly appreciate your participation, or that of someone from your station, in this research. If you would like to take the survey, please click the link below. Clicking on the link and filling out the survey indicates that you are consenting to participate in the study. You may choose to halt your involvement at any time. Halting involvement or choosing not to participate will result in no penalty.

If you chose not to participate, no further action is required on your part. If you have questions about participation, please avail yourself of the following contact information:

Researcher: Rachel M. Ward, Ohio University, [email protected], 443.812.5357 Advisor: Dr. Gregory Newton, Ohio University, [email protected], 740.597.1882 Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, 740.594.0664

If you would like to participate, please follow this link: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~rw212605/survey.htm

Instructions

The following research is being conducted by a graduate student in the public broadcasting telecommunications program at Ohio University. This research is about the use of podcasting at public radio stations. Stations that have implemented podcasting as 81 well as those that have not are welcome to participate. Taking the survey will take approximately 15 minutes, and covers questions about your station, the programs that you provide online, and your impression of podcasting.

If you chose to participate, your responses will be included in a database of answers from which statistics will be drawn. Identifying information will not be bound to your answers. Your station will not be identified by its name or specific location in written summaries of the research. This academic research is being conducted for a graduate thesis, and could be used for conference presentations, scholarly journals and publication.

If you consent to participate, please continue with the survey. You may choose to halt your involvement at any time. Halting involvement or choosing not to participate will result in no penalty.

If you have questions about participation, please avail yourself of the following contact information:

Researcher: Rachel M. Ward, Ohio University, [email protected], 443.812.5357 Advisor: Dr. Gregory Newton, Ohio University, [email protected], 740.597.1882 Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, 740.594.0664

PLEASE NOTE: Pressing the RETURN key will submit this survey. To transition between fields, use the TAB key.

Background 1. Please give your title at your station (optional)

2. Name of station

3. City and state of licensure

4. License class (FM stations only - optional) o A o B1 o B o C3 o C2 o C1 o C0 o C

5. Please mark all of the following that apply to your station. (Select all that apply.) NPR affiliate 82 o Pacifica affiliate o Joint licensee (co-operated with a television station) o Affiliated with a university, college, or other educational institution. o 6. Please mark the station format that best applies to your station. o News and talk o Classical music o AAA music o Jazz music o Roots music (bluegrass, country, blues, reggae, folk, etc.) o College/independent rock music o R&B/hip hop music o Other

7.With regard to implementing new digital technologies, like websites, audio streaming and podcasting, how would you classify your station? Please select the one that best applies. o We frequently develop and pioneer new technologies in the public radio system. o We are quick to study new ideas. Our decisions to implement technologies affect the decisions of other stations. o We carefully study new ideas and implement them after a few others in the public radio system have successfully tried them o We often wait to implement new technologies until it is clear that they will be financially beneficial; this sometimes puts us behind others in the system. o Fiscal prudence mandates that we implement a new technology only when we are certain that it will benefit us, or when not implementing it will cause us to lose money. We are generally technologically behind others in the system.

Online media 8. Does your station have a website? o Yes o No

9. Does your station offer a live, 24-hour audio stream? o Yes (Skip to Q.11) o No 10. If your station does not offer 24-hour streaming, what programs or types of programs do you selectively choose to stream?

11. Does your station offer streaming archives of past episodes of local programming o Yes o No

12. Does your station offer archived downloads of past episodes of local programming? o Yes 83 o No (Skip to Q.14)

13. If your station offers archived downloads of local programming, would you characterize these files as podcasts? A "podcast" is an MP3 audio file that can be "subscribed to" by listeners, which is delivered to a user's computer when a new episode is available. o Yes (Skip to Q.17) o No

14. Does your station offer any podcasts? A "podcast" is an MP3 audio file that can be "subscribed to" by listeners, which is delivered to a user's computer when a new episode is available. o Yes (Skip to Q.17) o No

15. Do you have plans to implement podcasting in the future? o Yes o No (Skip to Q.20)

16. If you have plans to podcast in the future, please approximate when they will be available (MM/DD/YYYY)

17. How many podcasts does your station offer?

18. When did you first begin podcasting? Please try to approximate DD/MM/YYYY.

19. How many podcasts do you plan to offer when your rollout is complete?

Podcasting

(Answer "Strongly disagree," "Disagree," "Neutral or no opinion," "Agree" or "Strongly agree.")

20. Podcasting is beneficial to a station's bottom line. 21. Podcasting is compatible with my station's mission. 22. Podcasting is complex to understand and implement. 23. It's easy to try out podcasting before implementing it wholesale. 24. Based on what I've seen at other stations, podcasting isn't that difficult. 25. Implementing podcasting is expensive. 26. Podcasting is compatible with public radio's mission. 27. Managing the copyright issues around podcasting is difficult. 28. Being able to test podcasting before investing a lot of money into it is important. 29. My knowledge of other stations' podcasting plans and efforts affects my thoughts about implementing it. 84 30. Implementing podcasting is important for a station in order to keep up with its peers in public radio. 31. Podcasting would be valuable to our listeners. 32. More technical personnel, or people with different skills, are needed to implement podcasting at a station. 33. I've seen other stations implement podcasting and I learned a lot from that. 34. I "get" podcasting - I understand how it works and why we'd want to implement it. 35. I am reluctant to implement podcasting because it may fragment our audience. 36. Implementing podcasting is similar to other digital implementations that we have made in the past. 37. Leadership from national networks/program distributors helps my station to make sense of podcasting. 38. Podcasting is inherently easy to experiment with. 39. I have a good idea of what all the components of podcasting are. 40. We need adequate underwriter support to pursue podcasting. 41. Podcasting would enable my station to do things that it currently cannot do. 42. We have enough support from outside of our station to implement podcasting. 43. Our listeners ask for podcasts. 44. It's prestigious to be able to say that one's station offers podcasts. 45. Podcasting is not different enough from streaming or other ways of providing digital audio to bother implementing. 46. Podcasting will be easier once more stations are doing it. 47. Public radio broadcasters as a whole think that podcasting is easy to try. 48. Our staff understands why our stations would want to begin podcasting. 49. If podcasting doesn't work out after a few tries, we're willing to pass on it. Final question - optional 50. Please supply a valid email address if you would like a summary of the results. Results should be available in early August 2006. Your email address will not be tied to your answers, and will be used only to share the requested results with you. 85

Appendix B: Rotated component matrix

Component 1 2 3 4 5 q20 .695 .033 –.030 –.074 –.104 q21 .703 .165 .386 .052 .008 q22 .120 –.846 –.042 .065 .052 q23 .062 .718 .288 .138 –.136 q24 .045 .760 .088 –.022 –.117 q25 –.326 –.487 –.185 .084 .391 q26 .779 .008 .314 .068 –.023 q27 –.348 .038 .036 .125 .221 q28 –.233 .091 –.118 .631 .115 q29 .136 –.071 –.146 .643 .087 q30 .578 –.007 .317 .301 –.160 q31 .800 .207 .165 .071 .006 q32 –.039 –.354 .027 .022 .616 q33 .132 .285 –.204 .382 .145 q34 .510 .440 .366 –.090 .093 q35 –.710 –.120 –.146 –.073 .073 q36 .128 .146 .666 –.045 –.211 q37 .108 –.101 .359 .523 .016 q38 .230 .737 .114 .059 –.303 q39 .223 .655 .016 –.070 .189 q40 –.095 .053 –.149 .257 .619 q41 .550 .339 .056 .421 .001 q42 .393 .375 .576 –.073 –.057 q43 .461 .273 .313 –.187 .228 q44 .562 –.017 .404 .128 .023 q45 –.678 –.092 .019 –.194 .271 q46 .001 –.133 .104 .696 –.189 q47 .055 .112 .139 .317 –.516 q48 .222 .179 .765 –.027 –.065 q49 –.665 –.059 .007 .117 –.057 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 7 iterations. 86

Appendix C: IRB approval form