Recommendation Summary
It is commonly understood that successful change within any social system depends upon the presence of certain characteristics. In his classic survey book, Diffusion of Innovations[1], Everett Rogers summarizes these characteristics as:
• Relative Advantage…the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. The degree of relative advantage may be measured in economic terms, but social prestige, convenience, and satisfaction are also important factors. It does not matter so much if an innovation has a great deal of objective advantage…the greater the perceived relative advantage of an innovation, the more rapid its rate of adoption will be.
• Compatibility…the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. An idea that is incompatible with the values and norms of a social system will not be adopted as rapidly as innovation that is compatible. The adoption of an incompatible innovation often requires the prior adoption of a new value system, which is a relatively slow process.
• Complexity…the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. New ideas that are simpler to understand are adopted more rapidly than innovations that require the adopter to develop new skills and understandings.
• Trialability…the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. New ideas that can be tried on the installment plan will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that are not divisible.
• Observability…the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The easier it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation, the more likely they are to adopt it. Such visibility stimulates peer discussion of a new idea.
In this report, the authors present evidence that the traditional model of funding, producing, distributing and using social issue media is in dire need of systemic change. Our original goal was to identify emerging models that might be adapted and replicated in our dramatically changing media environment; and to present methods and approaches that may help serious, thoughtful, nonmanipulative social issue media documentary producers find a foothold in today’s highly fragmented media world, and thus be able to continue to play an important role in mass communication that benefits the common good. To that end, we had intended to find examples that embody the five characteristics of successful change as outlined above. That turned out to be impossible.
Those who work in the social issue media industry are witnessing a paradigm shift affecting all stages of the life cycle of a media project. Like most paradigm shifts, the new values of success are inconsistent with previous value systems. Until new values and new benchmarks of success are adopted, controlled systemic change will be impossible. Change forced by crisis is likely.
Most reports created for foundations present a problem or series of problems and then quickly focus on solutions. That was our original intent. But, given the state of flux in the field of social issue media, a rush to solutions would be foolhardy (and disingenuous). The flux our industry faces is caused by rapid changes in technology that affect production, distribution, consumption and social impact. The resulting dissonance reflects the jumble of conflicting values held by the industry’s key players – funders, producers, distributors, broadcasters and consumers. Before solutions can be developed and adopted, a new set of common values must be articulated and embraced. This will take time, and for those trying to survive in this industry, the changes are so rapid that time is scarce.
The commercial marketplace is also changing the ways that documentaries are funded and distributed, such that the effort to aggregate niche markets on a non-geographic basis is overtaking the effort to serve the limited local audiences that are interested in specific documentaries. These targeted documentaries are increasingly funded on a commercial basis and consequently need to be “hot enough” to sell or rent in sufficient quantities to create a profit for investors. With notable exceptions, the theatrical box office for these partisan documentaries is negligible. Social issue documentaries that seek to speak to the wider public (and not to niche markets of the already-converted), and seek to present important issues in a nonmanipulative, balanced manner are on the brink of irrelevancy because they do not reach a significant audience (and frequently have little impact on those audiences they do reach). Few funders in the public and nonprofit sectors are attempting to counterbalance this trend.
To help guide the industry through this transition, we recommend the establishment of a new institution that will help many of the key stakeholders in the industry marshal their resources, coordinate their activities and succeed in establishing common goals and implementing effective strategies. The level of competence required to negotiate these changing times is beyond the skill set of most stakeholders. The new institution would be designed to help funders and social issue media producers weather this period of transition by providing expert services that stakeholders can not be expected to master. Within this institution, we recommend the establishment of a “public media liaison office,” which would serve as a buffer, coordinator and strategic professional liaison among media makers and underwriters as well as media distributors, broadcasters and transmitters. Additionally, we recommend that the institution offer a “national nonbroadcast production service,” which would prepurpose media from one format (broadcast) to multiple formats with enhancements and interactive tools relevant to the new formats (enhanced DVDs, Web-based films, cell phone media, podcasting, vBlogging). These recommendations are among the recommendations described in more detail later in this report.
• Relative Advantage…the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. The degree of relative advantage may be measured in economic terms, but social prestige, convenience, and satisfaction are also important factors. It does not matter so much if an innovation has a great deal of objective advantage…the greater the perceived relative advantage of an innovation, the more rapid its rate of adoption will be.
• Compatibility…the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. An idea that is incompatible with the values and norms of a social system will not be adopted as rapidly as innovation that is compatible. The adoption of an incompatible innovation often requires the prior adoption of a new value system, which is a relatively slow process.
• Complexity…the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. New ideas that are simpler to understand are adopted more rapidly than innovations that require the adopter to develop new skills and understandings.
• Trialability…the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. New ideas that can be tried on the installment plan will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that are not divisible.
• Observability…the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The easier it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation, the more likely they are to adopt it. Such visibility stimulates peer discussion of a new idea.
In this report, the authors present evidence that the traditional model of funding, producing, distributing and using social issue media is in dire need of systemic change. Our original goal was to identify emerging models that might be adapted and replicated in our dramatically changing media environment; and to present methods and approaches that may help serious, thoughtful, nonmanipulative social issue media documentary producers find a foothold in today’s highly fragmented media world, and thus be able to continue to play an important role in mass communication that benefits the common good. To that end, we had intended to find examples that embody the five characteristics of successful change as outlined above. That turned out to be impossible.
Those who work in the social issue media industry are witnessing a paradigm shift affecting all stages of the life cycle of a media project. Like most paradigm shifts, the new values of success are inconsistent with previous value systems. Until new values and new benchmarks of success are adopted, controlled systemic change will be impossible. Change forced by crisis is likely.
Most reports created for foundations present a problem or series of problems and then quickly focus on solutions. That was our original intent. But, given the state of flux in the field of social issue media, a rush to solutions would be foolhardy (and disingenuous). The flux our industry faces is caused by rapid changes in technology that affect production, distribution, consumption and social impact. The resulting dissonance reflects the jumble of conflicting values held by the industry’s key players – funders, producers, distributors, broadcasters and consumers. Before solutions can be developed and adopted, a new set of common values must be articulated and embraced. This will take time, and for those trying to survive in this industry, the changes are so rapid that time is scarce.
The commercial marketplace is also changing the ways that documentaries are funded and distributed, such that the effort to aggregate niche markets on a non-geographic basis is overtaking the effort to serve the limited local audiences that are interested in specific documentaries. These targeted documentaries are increasingly funded on a commercial basis and consequently need to be “hot enough” to sell or rent in sufficient quantities to create a profit for investors. With notable exceptions, the theatrical box office for these partisan documentaries is negligible. Social issue documentaries that seek to speak to the wider public (and not to niche markets of the already-converted), and seek to present important issues in a nonmanipulative, balanced manner are on the brink of irrelevancy because they do not reach a significant audience (and frequently have little impact on those audiences they do reach). Few funders in the public and nonprofit sectors are attempting to counterbalance this trend.
To help guide the industry through this transition, we recommend the establishment of a new institution that will help many of the key stakeholders in the industry marshal their resources, coordinate their activities and succeed in establishing common goals and implementing effective strategies. The level of competence required to negotiate these changing times is beyond the skill set of most stakeholders. The new institution would be designed to help funders and social issue media producers weather this period of transition by providing expert services that stakeholders can not be expected to master. Within this institution, we recommend the establishment of a “public media liaison office,” which would serve as a buffer, coordinator and strategic professional liaison among media makers and underwriters as well as media distributors, broadcasters and transmitters. Additionally, we recommend that the institution offer a “national nonbroadcast production service,” which would prepurpose media from one format (broadcast) to multiple formats with enhancements and interactive tools relevant to the new formats (enhanced DVDs, Web-based films, cell phone media, podcasting, vBlogging). These recommendations are among the recommendations described in more detail later in this report.
