Livingston Associates G3 Final Report 072109

G3 Vision Report
Steve Lindbeck
Bill Legere
Jake Poole
G3: Transforming Alaska Public Media

General managers from KTOO‐Juneau, KUAC‐Fairbanks and APTI‐Anchorage have met
frequently, either by telephone or in person, from August 2008 to July 2009 to discuss
emerging needs and pressures in public media and to imagine better futures. These wide‐
ranging discussions settled upon the view by late spring 2009 that nothing short of
transformation is required for public broadcasting and its core values to survive and
flourish in our communities in a transformed media environment. What follows is the
managers’ vision of what belongs in a new entity we propose to call Alaska Public Media.
This vision is distilled from dozens of hours of brainstorming and conversation, and is the
general managers’ shared proposal for how public media should evolve in our communities.

Vision:

Alaska Public Media (APM) will be Alaska’s leader in news, education and public
affairs – a community‐builder, a unifier, a convener and an aggregator of content
from many sources. Its tools will be news, community engagement, participation,
dialogue and a spectrum of program production ranging from premium
documentaries to twitter tweets. APM will be based on the news and programming
values exemplified by NPR and PBS, yet it forthrightly proclaims that its central
mission in the emerging world of global media lies in the Alaska content it produces.
This content is the news, public affairs, education and cultural programs that will
enrich and inform the lives of Alaskans, and also engage them in networks of
connection and dialogue with each other and indeed with a global media audience
and environment. APM will present content on multiple platforms and will
experiment deliberately in social networking, crowd sourcing, citizen journalism
and emerging digital media. Its scope, its definition of “community,” is statewide,
though its operations take place in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. APM will
provide a full package of media streams rooted in NPR/PBS values, approach and
quality, and covering news and events at the local, state, national and international
levels. The work of the Alaska Public Radio Network, AlaskaOne, 360 North, Gavel to
Gavel and UATV will be incorporated into a unified network. The entities that
combine to form Alaska Public Media will reach new levels of public service by
working together, in a mission that serves the shared experience of life in Alaska.
Mission language will strongly evoke unity and Alaskan ownership of a public, not‐
for‐profit service entity operating under a new economic model. Alaska Public
Media is the forum for Alaska to redefine itself again and again as time and
circumstances evolve.

Why:

With the issues and public‐interest stakes higher than ever, Alaskans need and
deserve information, understanding, connection and context in order to solve
problems, create prosperity, build communities, unify the state. Yet even as digital
media cut the costs of distribution, Alaska is left behind in the new world of content
production. Commercial media budgets are slashed as business models are
rewritten and deeply strained. A building crisis in journalism threatens the flow of
quality news and public affairs and heightens both the challenge and need for strong
G3: Transforming Alaska Public Media 2
public media. Alaskans are grossly underserved by media and, despite being
relatively well wired for the digital age, stand at risk of being left behind in the
media revolution now under way. Very little of Alaska’s media services are Alaska‐
owned or cognizant of the importance of a statewide voice. Hence the problems
dividing us are seldom addressed in a unifying way. Dennis McMillian’s report of
stakeholder interviews this spring captures in a powerful way the mission
awareness we enjoy:

“The consensus as to the mission of public broadcasting was overwhelming. In
my opinion, this is one of the clearest understandings of an institution’s ‘brand
proposition,’ or the public’s expectations of an organization’s purpose and how
they deliver on that promise. In the interviews, I documented the first words
that came to mind when I asked the question regarding mission. In high to low
sequence the words most used were: news/journalism, local voice, connecting
localstatenationworld, unbiased, and quality. There was almost unanimous
agreement that public broadcasting does very well in accomplishing its mission.
However, many felt that local and statewide news has diminished over the past
few years, both in terms of quality and quantity.”

And later:

“If any question evoked a constant message from constituents, it is that news is
a core function of public broadcasting and quality news is what draws almost
all of those interviewed into passionate support and appreciation. Only three
people mentioned a perceived ‘liberal bias.’ Most truly think that public
broadcast news is as unbiased as possible. Of the state’s most influential leaders
we interviewed, all voiced extreme loyalty to and confidence in NPR journalism.
NPR was identified as the source they trust most to learn about news.”

Elements that belong in the new Alaska Public Media:

¾ Statewide news/public affairs service operating on all media platforms, with stories,
sources and content producers from all regions of the state. Broadcast production
centers and production talent in each community. Synergies developed between
radio, television and web operations.

¾ Deepened and strengthened local roots in radio broadcasting in all communities,
including expanded use of digital radio and multicast.

¾ Expanded and unified news operation involving both local reporters in each
community or region and statewide reporters based in Washington DC, Juneau and
elsewhere as needed.

¾ New media unit empowered to experiment in social media and other emerging
digital platforms. This unit is resourced to incorporate new opportunities as they
arise, encouraged to innovate, expected to root its work in new media rather than
legacy platforms, and tasked to bring Alaska Public Media to the forefront of
emerging media activities.

G3: Transforming Alaska Public Media 3
¾ Unified television service serving all Alaskans with the ability to package services
for diverse audiences and communities, yet a common and recognizable brand.
News and program production, as well as programming choices, will be coordinated
and collaborative to serve all audiences – rural and urban, young and old,
advantaged and disadvantaged. Content will be aggregated from diverse sources
and presented on multiple platforms: broadcast on traditional channels (including
conventional over‐the‐air transmitters and translators), multiple digital channels to
maximize distribution opportunities, streaming services on the web, plus cable and
satellite distribution.

¾ Deepened commitment to PBS's traditional priorities and enduring strengths:
Children's programming that provides a “safe haven” for preschoolers and serves
the critically important mission of early childhood development; arts and culture
programming that makes accessible to rich and poor alike the treasures of the
world’s cultural heritage; and trusted journalism that, year after year, earns the top
spot in rankings of Americans’ most trusted public institutions.

¾ Unified brand expressing a name and image that resonates with Alaskans and
signifies the unity of the services we propose. The brand will cover operations on
the web, television, radio and new media; it will build upon and develop Alaskans’
expectation of quality and reliability. The organization will regularly seek audience
research and feedback to measure audience satisfaction and will develop the
marketing support to promote the organization and people involved.

¾ Consolidated and coordinated administration, development and engineering
operations will provide opportunities for greater efficiencies, strength and
specialization leading to improved organizational effectiveness. Potential areas for
improved effectiveness include grant writing, human resources, marketing,
database management, information technology, engineering/operations, special
events and financial or grants reporting. APM will necessarily incorporate a fluid
organizational structure as these efficiencies are explored and implemented.

¾ New roles for journalists: The work will make them aggregators and curators as
well as reporters; their skills will make them comfortable working across all
platforms; and the boundaries between radio, television, digital and print media
activities will come down.

¾ Aggregates material from many institutions: universities, museums, libraries, civic
groups, etc. Works with universities and schools as incubators of journalism and
citizen journalism.

¾ Documentary unit based in the excellence and initiative of professional producers.
APM will provide the environment, technical support and production facilities, as
well as distribution expertise, to enable the best craftspeople in television
production to tell Alaska’s most compelling stories from an Alaska point of view.

¾ Diverse, high‐functioning, fully representative board of directors comprised of
passionate advocates for statewide mission. APM will work with Foraker Group to
define key functions and best practices for this active board.
Alaska G3 Project
Final Report
July 21, 2009
Livingston Associates, LLC.

3000 Chestnut Avenue
Suite 208
Baltimore, MD 21211
Phone: 410.243.1974
Fax: 410.243.1975

Livingston Associates
Alaska G3 Project Final Report

Executive Summary pp 1‐3

Current Alaska G3 Structure p 4

Potential G3 Collaboration p 5

1. Introduction pp 6‐7

2. Process Steps and Timetable pp 7‐8

3. Evaluation Phase Activities pp 8‐9

4. Results of Evaluation Phase pp 9‐18
i. Community Consultation
ii. Staff Consultation
iii. Merger Case Studies

5. Economic Context and Urgency pp 18‐22
i. State of Public TV
ii. State of Public Radio

6. Financial Projections pp 22‐23

7. Options for Consolidation pp 23‐25

8. Strategic Considerations pp 26‐28

9. Next Steps pp 28‐31

Appendices

A. Alaska G3 White Paper
B. Foraker Report
C. Alaska Staff Survey Summary
D. Merger Case Studies
E. Financial Model Summary
F. Livingston Associates Interim Report
Executive Summary
For more than three decades, public radio and television have been at the center of Alaska’s
civic and cultural life, providing information and connection to its citizens, the rest of the U.S.
and the world. Alaskans have demonstrated the significance of public media to their lives
through levels of listening/viewing, participation and financial support that are dramatically
higher on a per‐capita basis than throughout the rest of the country.
At the same time, even with unmatched levels of individual and business support, Alaska’s light
population and geographic vastness have resulted in an inability to sustain the public media
infrastructure originally put in place to serve the state.
While the challenge of creating a sustainable economic model for public media in Alaska has
continued to grow, the need for the service has grown as well, as other sources of local
information and connection (such as newspapers) have gone into decline.
In response to this challenge to sustainability, and from a desire to continue to meet the media
needs of the State, Alaska’s public media organizations have created several consolidations
over the past decade and a half. These have ranged from strategic alliances (AlaskaOne,
CoastAlaska) to outright mergers (KAKM, KSKA and APRN).
In the fall of 2008, Alaska’s three largest public broadcasting operations, KTOO‐Juneau, KUAC‐
Fairbanks, and APTI‐Anchorage, calling themselves the G3 stations, agreed to explore the
possibility of further consolidation with a three‐phase project formalized into evaluation, design
and implementation, each with a circuit‐breaker opportunity for the respective governing body
to decide to continue forward to the next phase or to halt the work. This document is a report
on the results of the evaluation phase.
The evaluation process included six activities: consultations with community
leaders/stakeholders from the communities; consultation with the staffs of the three
organizations; collection of case studies from consolidations of other public media
organizations; a review of national trends in public television and radio; and financial analysis
and projections of the three organizations separately and in aggregate. We’ve also provided
some ideas about potential functional areas for consolidation and possible elements of a
consolidated organization.
Consultation with community leaders: Dennis McMillian of the Foraker Group interviewed 66
stakeholders and community leaders from each of the three communities. Among the key
consensus points: a clear and successful mission with the attributes of news, localism,
connection, unbiased, and quality; some loss in quality of local/state service; the centrality of
Livingston Associates 1
radio; that some level of additional consolidation would likely be appropriate as long as options
chosen were financially feasible.
Consultation with G3 staff members: Tom Livingston met with the staffs of the three
organizations and a follow up written survey was administered as well. While there were some
significant differences in the tone of the consultations, consensus points included that staffs
were concerned about receiving updates on the process; about a potential loss of localism; that
quality of planning, execution and fairness of any consolidation were of paramount importance;
and they were concerned about the impact on their individual jobs, working conditions and
their respective organization.
Collection of case studies of public media consolidation/merger efforts: Common lessons
learned include: Mergers take longer than expected; commitment is critical; as much as
possible, start with a clean slate; staff rarely reacts positively to the idea of a merger; have a
proactive communications strategy; good relationships and trust are important; funder support
for merger efforts are increasing. Alaska stations have extensive and useful experience with
consolidation and mergers.
Economic context and urgency: Public television has experienced long‐term trends in slowly
declining audiences and an eroding economic model that have accelerated dramatically during
the current economic recession. In January, CPB projected a 16% decline in total revenues year
to year, and if anything the news has worsened in the months since. In response, a great
number of local stations have announced significant layoffs. In the same January report, CPB
projected only slightly better results for public radio (13% decline in total revenue), though
anecdotal information suggests brighter results, including relatively strong membership income
and at least flat underwriting results.
Financial projections for stand‐alone and aggregated Alaska G3 operations: In projections
maintaining the current stand‐alone structure, starting from balanced to slightly positive
surplus projections for FY10, all three organizations face expenses rising faster than income
over the next 10 years with deficits starting as early as year 1 and as late as year 7. In order to
allow for improved service, a combined organization would need to continue similar levels of
support from the University of Alaska and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Options for consolidation: Options for increased collaboration/consolidation range from a)
collaboration, in which no permanent organizational commitment is needed; b) strategic
alliance/consolidation, which involves a long‐term commitment, decision making power is
shared or transferred and is driven by formal agreement (e.g. Alaska One and Coast Alaska);
finally to c) Corporate integration/merger, which involves corporate control or structure,
including creation or dissolution of one or more organizations (Source: Nonprofit Mergers
Workbook; La Piana).
Strategic considerations and possible opportunity areas for consolidation: CPB policy
regarding separate base grants for the three organizations, and ongoing financial support of the
University of Alaska are both issues that could have a significant impact on the viability of any
consolidation effort. Potential areas for consolidation include: completing the Alaska One
model; completing carriage of 360 North service for all three organizations; and scaling out the
Coast Alaska model to serve other public radio organizations in the state. In addition, potential
areas for increased efficiency/effectiveness include greater coordination of the public radio
news resource (APRN working with the local news people in the G3 staffs); as well as greater
coordination of the underwriting and membership functions.
Framework for a decision and next steps: Upon review by G3 management of the final report
of the evaluation phase, a meeting of the governance/coordinating committee will result in a
recommendation on whether to forward the report to the respective governance bodies for
approval to proceed to the design phase. A design team would conduct the work of the next
phase which would include selecting a recommended organizational structure, conducting due
diligence for the recommended structure, preparing any legal work needed and crafting a
potential communications strategy. The design team would then forward the plan and
recommendation to the respective governing bodies.
Potential model for Alaska Public Media: While considerable work needs to be done in the
design phase to test and even create the actual structure, potential aspects of the new
organization generated by internal and external G3 stakeholders include: Creation of a joint‐
venture to operate a combined organization while the assets continued to be held by the
current separate corporations with the device of Local Management Agreements. Each current
location would be assigned elements of the consolidated operation based on current strengths
and/or other strategic considerations. Consideration would be given wherever possible to
utilizing current staff in their respective locations. In addition, as much as possible, shifts of
location for positions will be considered as the result of attrition (that is when an employee
retires or resigns from the organization). Other potential functional areas that have been
suggested as consolidation candidates are shown in the figure on the cover page of this report.
APRN
Radio news network of
25 Alaska stations;
1 governed by APTI
KUAC Board of Directors.
FM/TV
Fairbanks
Coast Alaska
Independent, non-profit
service organization for
5 5 5 radio stations in
2
Southeast Alaska; many
3 staff housed at KTOO.
1
3
KYUK
Bethel Alaska One
Juneau, Fairbanks and
APTI KTOO Bethel joint venture
KAKM-TV 1 TV 3 providing PBS programs
1 Radio service to the three PTV
KSKA-FM stations.
Anchorage Juneau
4
360 North
Full time cable channel
produced by KTOO in
4 Juneau; marketed as a
statewide public affairs
5 channel.
1 2
UATV
A University of Alaska
cable channel
5 distributing college
Other Alaska Public Radio Stations in courses & public service
Public Radio content throughout the
Sitka, Petersburg,
Stations state via cable network
Wrangell & Ketchikan.
CONSOLIDATE ÇOORDINATE CONSOLIDATE
UNDERWRITING BACKROOM BUSINESS
SALES STAFF MEMBERSHIP FUNCTION
PROCESS
GREATER CONSOLIDATE
COORDINATION OF BUSINESS OR
RADIO NEWS TECHNOLOGY
STAFFS FUNCTION
Complete Complete
statewide coverage statewide UATV
of 360 North by coverage
adding Fairbanks
Complete Build out Coast

Alaska One Alaska Model to
by including include the entire
Anchorage state
New G3 Entity
Joint Venture
LMA
APTI KTOO KUAC
License & License & License &

call letters call letters call letters
remains remains remains
intact intact intact

1. INTRODUCTION
Public media in Alaska was built out during the 1970’s and ‘80’s, a time when the state had
plentiful funding and a strong consensus for the need for public radio and TV throughout the
state. The system was built almost completely based on a mission‐based need for the service,
and essentially without consideration for a future need for sustainability.
The resulting service is legendary throughout public media for providing primary service – in
many cases, Alaska’s 29 public radio stations serve communities where it is the ONLY broadcast
media. The rich, 30‐plus year heritage of public media service in Alaska includes helping citizens
know what to do during natural and man‐made emergencies, such as coordinating local
response to the Exxon Valdez oil‐spill disaster, to providing the “Mukluk Telegraph” – sending
personal messages to fishermen out at sea and trappers in the bush.
The critical need for the service provided by public media in Alaska combined with the passion
and skill of its practitioners, led to levels of community involvement and support dramatically
higher than that enjoyed by public media throughout the rest of the U. S. Public radio and
television in the state also became an origination point and “finishing school” for professionals
in the field, raising standards of what was possible and providing reporters, producers and
leaders for the rest of public media.
Public radio and television in Alaska enjoy a cherished and deserved heritage of providing
primary public safety service, a connection to the rest of the state, nation and the world, and
enrichment from music and other cultural services. At the same time, the original system,
providing local service to communities with as few as 500 residents, is unsustainable without
the level of State subsidies used to build and support the original system. Compared to results
for listener support and underwriting for public radio and television stations in the lower‐48,
the entire population of Alaska would be marginally large enough to support one radio/TV
service, let alone the four stand‐alone public television and 29 public radio stations now serving
the state.
Changes in the price of oil (in 1986 the price of oil dropped from $26/barrel to $13/barrel) and
a change at the state level in the sense of need/appropriateness of providing the previous level
of subsidies has led to decreased State funding and steadily increasing levels of
cooperation/collaboration between stations as they have sought to balance need for service
and available resources.
Since 1995, a) KAKM and KSKA, the public radio and television stations in Anchorage merged
and subsequently APRN merged into that organization; b) The five public radio organizations in
Southeast (KTOO, Juneau; KCAW, Sitka; KFSK, Petersburg; KRBD, Ketchikan; KSTK, Wrangell)
created “Coast Alaska” a collaboration with a shared Executive Director, finance and reporting
staff; and c) KTOO, KUAC‐TV (Fairbanks) and KYUK‐TV (Bethel) created “Alaska One” a single
stream of programming created centrally at KUAC that replaced the previously separately
originated services.
The trends (decreasing state support, essentially flat federal support, insufficient population
bases to fill the gap, changes – primarily in the TV competitive environment – that have eroded
audiences and individual support) have continued, creating a spiral of cutting staff to match
reductions in resources, which in turn erodes stations’ ability to provide local service, with a
potential to further erode audiences.
At the same time, the need for public media in Alaska has not only remained strong, but is
increasing, as other media such as local newspapers succumb to similar forces. Both the
Anchorage and Juneau newspapers have significantly reduced staff, cutting back on local news
coverage. The Juneau “Empire” is now a one section newspaper. One of the major
commercial television stations has also reduced newsroom staff.
In August, 2008, managers and board members of Alaska’s “urban” stations, KTOO (Juneau),
APTI (Anchorage), and KUAC (Fairbanks), met to discuss next steps in working together to serve
the people of Alaska, and created the “G3”. The group agreed to a set of priorities and created
a “white paper” (See Appendix A) that laid out a vision and process for exploring the continuum
of potential increases in collaboration, from combining functions to a complete merging of the
three organizations.
In March, 2009, after creation of the white paper, a meeting of governance representatives of
the three organizations and selection of a consulting team (Tom Livingston and Cheryl Head of
Livingston Associates and Maynard Orme of Ormedia), the exploration process was formalized
into three phases, evaluation, design and implementation, each with a circuit‐breaker
opportunity for the respective boards to decide to continue forward to the next phase or to
halt the work. The three organizations also agreed to, and signed a letter of agreement to fund
the evaluation phase of the project.
2. PROCESS STEPS AND TIMETABLE
Evaluation Phase
The evaluation phase was scheduled for four months (March through June, 2009) and was to
conclude with a vote by the governing bodies for each of the three organizations on whether or
not to proceed to a design/due diligence phase. The process was set to include the following
activities:
• Consultation with community leaders;
• Consultation with G3 staff members;
• Collection of case studies of Public Media consolidation/merger efforts;
• Providing context of national trends in public television and radio.
• Creation of financial projections for the stand‐alone and aggregated operations;
• Options for Consolidation
• Creation of Framework for a decision and next steps:
• Creation of potential structure for new entity
(This document provides the results of these activities)
Design Phase
If the organizations approve moving forward, the work will proceed to the Design/Due
Diligence Phase. The purpose of this proposed phase is to design the new organizational
structure for the G3. It is expected this phase will include final creation of the model, as well as
organizational and legal research and design of the new structure. While a time‐frame has not
been set for this phase, it is expected to take a similar amount of time as the Evaluation phase.
At the conclusion of the Design phase, it is expected the governing bodies of the three separate
organizations would make a decision about final approval of the new operating structure.
Implementation Phase
Implementation of the new structure (if this is the decision of the governing boards) would be
completed in time for creation of a combined budget and operations for the 2011 fiscal year.

3. EVALUATION PHASE ACTIVITIES
April‐May, 2009: Dennis McMillian and the Foraker Group were retained to conduct interviews
with community and governance (board member) stakeholders. The G3 managers provided lists
of key stakeholders and an interview template was developed in collaboration between the
managers and the consultant group. Sixty‐six interviews were completed (See Foraker Report
Appendix B).
Late April, 2009: Tom Livingston consulted with staff at each of the three organizations. The
consultations ranged from one‐on‐one conversations with senior staff members to full staff
meetings. The consultations consisted of a background briefing (including sharing consensus
points generated at the March meeting). Participants were also asked to identify a) critical
issues related to possible increased collaboration, b) potential opportunities and pitfalls from
increased collaboration and c) current strengths their respective organizations could contribute
to a more consolidated operation. Virtually every staff member of the three organizations was
included in the consultation. This consult was followed by a written internet‐based survey
instrument that 21 staff members completed (See Survey Summary, Appendix C).
May‐June, 2009: Livingston Associates’ Cheryl Head identified examples of consolidation efforts
from throughout public media and collected case studies from six of these efforts, exploring
common themes of board management, funder support, strategy/vision, communications
efforts, the implementation process and lessons learned. The case studies include: the 2003
Iowa Public Radio merger; the 1990s merger that created Maine Public Broadcasting; the
regional merger of the Dayton and Cincinnati public television stations in 2008; the highly
publicized merger of public radio and television in Cleveland which resulted in a new service
called Ideastream; the merger of the San Jose and San Francisco PTV stations in 2007; and a
new program operations merger in Portland, Oregon between OPB and a college‐owned station
with a valued music service (See Merger Case Studies, Appendix D).
May‐July, 2009: Public Radio Capital was retained to develop financial scenarios and projections
of the G3 stations with their current, separate organizational structures as well as projections
based on a combined configuration (See Financial Models, Appendix E).
4. RESULTS OF EVALUATION PHASE

In a meeting held March 13, 2009, Governance representatives from KTOO, KUAC and APTI
agreed on the following consensus points for any new consolidation effort:
Vision for Alaska Public Media
• If successful, in the future the combined operation will be viewed as more important
in the state. Our intent is to build a true statewide network while maintaining local
significance at each community we now serve. We will also increase reach/service
into rural and native communities. (The service is) trusted – shares our mission‐
based core values and rich heritage of community/public service.
• The successful operation will have a state‐wide influential board.
• In exploring the potential of a more collaborative state‐wide operation, and should
we choose to go ahead in our design work, we will include measurable outcomes
agreed on in advance with a report card for our stakeholder groups.
• A central aspiration is to help knit Alaska together as a state – to build on what it is
to be Alaskan.
• Through working together, we aspire to developing a high quality, state‐wide
production team, convergent across platforms, as well as build on our current
capacity and enhance a truly state‐wide, multi‐platform news presence.
• In our work we imagine/intend to maintain the intensely local nature of our radio
services.

i. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
The G3 project retained Dennis McMillian of the Foraker Group to consult with board and
community leaders in Fairbanks, Anchorage and Juneau.
“Of the state’s most influential
General Managers for each of the G3 stations submitted a list
leaders we interviewed, all of individuals to be interviewed, and the project team created
voiced extreme loyalty to and a list of seven questions to be asked of each respondent. In all,
confidence in NPR journalism. 66 interviews were completed.
NPR was identified as the
McMillian reported several areas of strong consensus from this
source they trust most to
group of significant community and/or statewide leaders, who
learn about the news”
were also relatively familiar with the respective organization
Dennis McMillian
(served on board, etc.):
• Strong consensus on mission as – news/journalism, local voice, connecting local‐
state‐nation‐world, unbiased and quality;
• While the group felt the respective G3 organization accomplishes its mission well,
there was a consensus that local/state news has diminished in quality and quantity;
• Radio should remain local or at least seem locally controlled;
• The respondents were positive about consolidation as long as options chosen were
financially feasible;
• First step should be to merge APTI TV into the Alaska One model;
• High level of approval for more collaboration, less confidence in successful complete
merger;
• Concern about location of headquarters (Anchorage/rest of Alaska split);
• If localism is decreased, community support may decline as well;
• To these community leaders, public radio news is a primary source of information
about the nation and world – to some, it is already a more important source than
local newspapers;
• Lots of interest in/awareness of the potential for new technologies;
• We should keep the other public media organizations in the state informed, but not
necessarily try to have them at the table (until we have a clear vision and direction);
ii. STAFF CONSULTATION
From April 27 to May 1, 2009, Livingston Associates Principal, Tom Livingston, conducted site
visit consultations with staffs from KTOO, APTI and KUAC.
Consultations ranged from one‐on‐one conversations with senior staffs to small group and full
staff meetings. In each consultation the respective staff group was briefed on the context for
the G3 project, read the consensus points from the March meeting
Staff felt planning, of the governance group and given a timetable for the evaluation
execution and fairness of phase. The respondents were asked a series of questions including
any level of consolidation critical issues, potential benefits, potential problems and any
were of paramount
suggestions for the process or a potential increased level of
importance.
cooperation between the three entities.
The tone of the consultations was significantly different for each of the three organizations. The
differences seemed to be driven by some combination of history, culture and the current
situation at the respective organization. For example, both KUAC and KTOO were facing the
need for work‐force reductions, but KUAC was in the process of implementing staff cuts, and
KTOO had not begun the implementation process. KTOO has an extremely stable leadership
team, while KUAC is currently without a GM and APTI has only recently gone through a
leadership transition. KTOO has a history of successfully planning and implementing large
strategic projects (including the recent acquisition of two local radio stations to supplement its
public radio service), while APTI’s experience with similar‐sized activities has been more
challenging (specifically mergers – KAKM and KSKA and more recently APTI and APRN).
While the tone of the consultations was different, there were similarities and consensus points
in the response:
• Staffs were concerned about receiving complete and timely information about the
process.
• There was a concern about the loss of localism.
• Staffs felt planning, execution and fairness of any level of consolidation were of
paramount importance.
• Staffs were concerned about the impact of any changes on their job/working conditions,
and on their respective organization.
In addition to concerns, all the groups offered thoughtful and useful suggestions for
operational/structural configurations in any increased level of collaboration.
To supplement the face‐to‐face consultations, a web‐based survey was created and all staff
members at the three organizations were invited to submit responses. In all, 21 surveys were
submitted (anonymously) by staff, a response rate of 20% to 30% for all staff.
iii. MERGER CASE STUDIES
Public media has flirted with various forms of mergers for more than a decade, but in the past
few years, interest and activity has increased significantly, moving toward intense pursuit of
collaborations and consolidations that can make the system of locally‐owned and operated
stations more efficient, connected and essential in communities across the country.
The road to mergers in public broadcasting—as with many non‐profits—has not always been
smooth and straight. Unlike for‐profit mergers, with clear incentives of increased profitability,
market share and dividends, the goals of public media mergers are often murkier. Certainly,
improved financial stability is a key incentive for mergers in public radio and television, but
equally important, and perhaps more resonant to stakeholders, is the notion of improved
service.
Management of board In this section of our report we present a summary of
expectations, findings in six public media merger efforts (See Merger Case
communication and Studies Appendix D.) in Iowa, Dayton‐Cincinnati, Cleveland
dynamics is a key factor in Maine, San Francisco‐San Jose, and in Portland, Oregon.
a successful merger. Three of the mergers combine radio and television
operations, one involves several radio stations and two the

merger of two public television stations. In each case study,
there are techniques, strategies, pitfalls and lessons learned that can be helpful to the
consideration of an Alaska G3 merger. For context, we reference Alaska public media merger
efforts.
Common Lessons Learned
Mergers take longer than expected—even when there is agreement that a merger would be
beneficial to the entities involved, there are few shortcuts to the months (and sometimes years)
needed to build a vision for the outcomes, get board buy‐in, negotiate operational issues,
handle legal requirements, and manage stakeholder fears and expectations.
But, commitment is everything—since it takes a long time to get to a final deal, the process
requires strong participation and earnest intent of management and board leadership.
Start with a clean slate—if merger rather than collaboration is the selected outcome of the
evaluation process, start with a clean slate. We heard this a few times in our research. Putting
everything on the table allows Board leadership to see the plusses and minuses for their own
organizations and for the new entity. Innovation, efficiencies and new synergies can result
when building anew. However, starting from zero is not always an option because it is difficult
and can add time to the process.
Staff rarely react positively to a proposed merger—why should they? A merger means change
and change invokes the unknown. There are many techniques used to minimize negative staff
reaction to impending mergers. Keeping staff in the loop with good, continuous information is
a prudent way to proceed. Also, providing opportunities for, and listening to constructive staff
feedback can be helpful to the process.
Have a proactive communications strategy—for all current and potential stakeholders. Clear,
inspiring language with a few key message points will be useful throughout the merger process.
The messages should not “over promise,” but should suggest opportunity not crisis.
Good relationships and trust help—existing or new relationships built over time among the
leadership of the merging entities will make the process better because of improved and
increased communications.
Funder support for merger efforts are increasing—The Association of Small Foundations, the
Council on Foundations and the Chronicle of Philanthropy have recently hosted webinars and
teleconferences on the subject. In 2008 The Lodestar Foundation www.lodestar.org launched
the $250,000 Collaboration Prize, an effort to demonstrate how nonprofit resources can be
used more effectively to create greater impact. CPB has also provided funding for some recent
merger and collaboration activities in public media.
Merger Strategy/Vision/Language
In all the merger examples we’ve researched, a key component of the success of a merger was
identifying the right language to use to define the goals of the activity, gain buy‐in from
stakeholders and keep board and staff engaged. Ideastream (the merger of the Cleveland
public television and radio station in 1999) presented a compelling picture of increased service
impact to its board, funders and community members that was to “define a sustaining purpose
for public broadcasting in Cleveland.” In the Iowa merger (2005), the state’s Board of Regents
was reminded of public radio’s role in enhancing the quality of life of Iowans. In a current
(2009) consolidation of programming between the major television/radio entity and a
university‐licensed jazz format public radio station in Portland, Oregon the vision centers on
increased learning opportunities for the students of the university, plus enriched services for
jazz audiences in the area.
Financial considerations often drive mergers; that has been the case in the past and no doubt
the current economic crisis will make mergers an increasingly attractive prospect in the future.
Our research shows, however, that while operational efficiencies can be gained over time, in
the short‐run mergers can cost money. CPB estimates that at least three years is needed to
build revenue and show cost savings and, in fact, the first year of a merger will cost more, due
to increased legal fees, training, and the cost of staff reductions.
What we have heard and continue to hear about public media mergers is that it is not enough
to focus only on operational cost savings to win over stakeholders. As one interviewee put it,
when a public media board member is asked about his or her decision on a merger, it’s better
for this volunteer to be able to say they voted for improved services for the community and not
just to save money.
Rules of Engagement/Implementation
No two mergers in public media have been exactly alike, but there is beginning to be a body of
knowledge about mergers, and while we don’t yet have a list of “best practices”, trial and error
has been informative.
Maine Public Broadcasting Network invested time and money on management training and
communications infrastructure to gain cohesion among staff from culturally‐different
operations. This practice paid off, and within a couple of years PBS was inviting Maine Public
Broadcasting staff to present at conferences on the process of mergers. As a former senior
staffer of the network said to us about managing staff during the merger, “we just kept doing
the right thing over and over.”
A good relationship between heads of stations considering merger is a significant factor in a
smooth and successful process. A case in point is the Ideastream effort. GMs Jerry Wareham
and Kit Jensen had been meeting for years to discuss affairs of their stations and the possibility
of collaboration. When they brought the idea of a merger to their Boards, they had already
developed trust and respect for each others’ skills. Because of the strength of their
relationship, when the Board asked who would head a merged entity, Wareham and Jensen laid
out a shared plan for leadership that worked to each of their respective strengths.
Communications
Our merger research revealed a variety of approaches for internal and external
communications before, during and after the merger implementation process, ranging from
complete non‐disclosure to ongoing updates to key stakeholders. A general finding is that most
organizations prefer to keep a line of communications open with the staff (especially
department managers) when it comes to mergers, to help with rumor control and overall
planning. In Cleveland, the merger negotiating team met confidentially for nine months with
each member of the team signing a non‐disclosure form. The goal was to get the specifics of
the deal completed so it wouldn’t be picked apart. Once the deal was approved, there was a
systematic communications plan executed including meetings with all major funders and
community leaders. Senior staff was apprised of the merger just one month before the vote,
and were told they would keep their jobs. In the Iowa public radio merger, the hindsight view is
that senior staff could have helped the cultural transition had they been more informed of the
process around the merger. Maine Public Broadcasting leadership went to great lengths to
keep their staff connected to each other in the early days of merger implementation, adding
video conferencing technology as a way to have weekly meetings with the geographically‐
dispersed senior staff. In the Dayton‐Cincinnati merger, there were direct, balanced and
ongoing communications to staff, but one important message was that staff would not be
reduced.
In our Alaska G3 work, we have worked closely with the General Managers to provide
opportunities for information to the staff and feedback from staff. These efforts have included
one‐on‐one conversations in person and by phone, group discussions and an online survey.
One technique used by a major non‐profit involved in a merger in the San Francisco area was to
regularly publish a newsletter for all stakeholders reporting on the progress of their merger
with a similar organization. The publication called the Integration Times was considered a
useful tool in their merger process. 1
Board Management

Everyone we interviewed about merger success described management of board expectations,
communications and dynamics as a key factor. Building collegiality of the two merger entities’
boards was a deliberate undertaking of the Maine merger. In Iowa, the merger was the idea of
the Board of Regents, yet the board nonetheless received monthly updates on the merger
progress. Some mergers resulted in a combined board of all existing members; others selected
one or more “legacy” members to sit on the board of the combined entity, supplemented by
new members. A couple of people warned about board members getting “too hung up on the
details” or being too partisan to their respective organization. In those cases, it was suggested
that other board members were needed to regain power over the process. In the Ideastream
merger, the board chairs were purposely left out of implementation discussions so they were
able to be “removed enough to be judicious at the end.”

1
Publication of Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco (2008).
Our research found that board vacillation was the key reason for not moving forward with a
merger. Such was the case in a merger attempt among the New Mexico stations, and a
separate TV merger attempt in Oregon. CPB is well aware of this history and, as a result, makes
its funding support of mergers conditional on “a serious, documented board commitment.”
Funding Support

Support from funders can come in a variety of ways: from paying for merger implementation,
to participating in merger designs, to funding program and project efforts to complement the
merger process. Ideastream invited the Cleveland Foundation to participate in its merger
implementation process by having a foundation program office facilitate all the meetings of the
merger team. After the merger, the Cleveland Foundation was joined by several other local
foundations in supporting the new combined entity.
CPB funding related to mergers will likely increase over the next several years as public media
grapples with increasing expenses and reduced revenue from traditional sources. Up to now,
CPB has provided some funding to stations to:
• Hold meetings for initial discussions of station collaborations/consolidations in overlap
markets (WNET/WLIW);
• Assess community needs/issues in markets with mergers (Ideastream);
• Continue discrete base grants for each of the merger organizations (Iowa, Maine,
Dayton‐Cincinnati);
• Facilitate operational discussions (implementation) after merger intent is demonstrated
(Dayton/Cincinnati).
In a recent Chronicle for Philanthropy webinar on non‐profit mergers, there was consensus that
the foundation community has a growing interest in non‐profit merger activity and is
supporting that interest with a variety of grant making. One of the more interesting efforts of
the philanthropic community is the Lodestar Foundation’s Collaboration Grant project. This
new project, introduced in 2008, supports the Lodestar Foundation’s mission to: “encourage
and support collaborations, consolidations, mergers and other long‐term cooperating activities
among non‐profits working in the same area; and to encourage other business practices, in
order to increase efficiency and eliminate duplication of efforts.” The Lodestar Foundation,
located in Phoenix has made at least one grant to the public television station in the area
(KAET) but its funding is not restricted to the local area. Its most recent Collaboration Grant
winners are the Dallas Museum of Nature and Science and the YWCA and JCC of Toledo, Ohio
who split a $250,000 award.
Alaska History with Collaboration
Over the past 10‐15 years the G3 partners have had a rich and extensive history of strategic
alliances/restructuring, including joint ventures (CoastAlaska, AlaskaOne) and outright merger
(KSKA/KAKM, and APRN/APTI). These experiences are valuable in several ways. They give the
partners first‐hand experience with working with each other as well as expertise in what works
and doesn’t work in consolidations.
The CoastAlaska service began in 1994 in response to a directive from the Alaska Public
Broadcasting Commission (APBC), and was incorporated in 1997 as a service
organization for five public radio stations in Southeast Alaska (Juneau, Sitka, Petersburg,
Wrangell and Ketchikan). CoastAlaska initially turned to KTOO to provide support
services for the member radio stations. Since incorporation, CoastAlaska has become a
fully independent non‐profit with its own Executive Director and staff, many of whom
work out of the KTOO building in Juneau.
AlaskaOne is a joint venture of the public television stations in Juneau, Fairbanks and
Bethel created in 1995 as an urgent response to state cuts to public television. Its main
purpose is to provide the classic PBS program service to the three member station
transmitters and to cable systems and translators in un‐served parts of the state. The
service is governed by a three‐member board of the managers of each station and
originates from KUAC in Fairbanks.
In 1994, KSKA radio merged with public television station KAKM forming the parent
company of the Alaska Public Telecommunications Inc. (APTI) and moved into the
KAKM facility. KSKA and KAKM kept their individual call letters and the two stations
cooperate in local initiatives and public affairs programming. In July 2004, APTI merged
with the Alaska Public Radio Network (APRN) to benefit from operating efficiencies.
APRN is a network of 25 radio stations in Alaska that share news and other audio
content statewide. APRN’s flagship program Alaska News Nightly is a weekday evening
30‐minute show. APRN is governed by the APTI Board of Directors which includes
representation from around the state, and from each station. An APRN News Board
monitors matters of programming, journalistic ethics and station services.
360 North is currently distributed independently by KTOO on a separately leased
satellite channel. The service is distributed to cable and direct broadcast satellite
companies in the state, and is also multicast on KTOO's and KAKM's DTV transmitters.
The channel is marketed as a statewide public affairs channel featuring politics, history,
culture and science.
UATV is a University of Alaska cable channel operated by KUAC. The station broadcasts
educational and public service programming. The channel primarily televises video
college classes and University of Alaska public service and educational programs at the
University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau in addition to re‐broadcasting nationally
produced Research Channel programming. The channel is underutilized due to staff and
funding restrictions but offers outstanding potential for increased educational and
public service programming.
CoastAlaska, AlaskaOne and the APTI mergers give the partners a background that can and
should be used to inform the range of possibilities to consider in the G3 process. These Alaska
case studies can be used as a guide in choosing how to design and implement additional
collaboration.
5. ECONOMIC CONTEXT AND URGENCY
The challenging current economic environment increases urgency for action in ways that an
improving or even neutral environment does not.
i. State of Public TV
Both public television and
public radio are impacted Exacerbated by the overall weak economy, the general
by the worsening economy. financial health of public television is poor. According to a
However, public radio is recent CPB report on public TV’s financial health, current
outperforming public TV in trends (2004‐2007) show a decrease in median total
general financial health. profitability (defined as net operating results before
depreciation divided by total operating revenue). 2
Revenue erosion from state funding, membership and underwriting appears to be the culprit.
Overall, public television revenue for FY2009 is projected to decline by 16% or $292 million
from FY2008 figures. 3

2
CPB February 2008 Public Television Sustainability Report
3
CPB Board Meeting report, January 26, 2009.
CPB’s financial assessment of 173 public TV licensees indicates 21% of stations are in a “fragile”
condition on a Financial Strength Index measuring liquidity, debt and net assets. Community‐
licensed stations were over‐represented in the fragile category.
While station size does not appear to be an indicator of sustainability, dependence on state
revenues (more than 30% of operating funds coming from state government) and geography
(location in a market with high unemployment) are significant negative factors to sustainability.
4

Public Television Underwriting
Underwriting is taking a hit for both public radio and public television; however public
television membership revenue is particularly vulnerable. Current newspaper reports that
corporate underwriting will decrease by $75 million in FY 2009. 5 America’s Public Television
Stations (APTS) analysis forecasts FY2010 national and local corporate underwriting will fall 20‐
30% from the FY2007 baseline. 6 PBS reports while national underwriting for prime‐time
programming overall is flat from 2004‐2008, underwriting for the major PBS series (e.g.
“Masterpiece Theatre”, “Frontline”, “Nature”) is down $13 million. In the near future,
underwriting is expected to continue slipping.
Public Television Membership
December 2008 pledge results for 32 PTV stations (source: PBS) show an erosion of
membership income:
• Total dollars were down 20%
• Number of pledges were down 11%
• Total minutes of pledge were up 8%.

CPB’s projections based on a review of audited financial reports (AFR) show public television
membership decreasing 20% in 2009 from 2008 levels. Another unknown is the impact of the
analog to digital switchover on membership. Estimates are that 6% of PTV members were
over‐the‐air viewers.
Public Television Layoffs
The first six months of 2009 have brought a flurry of public television station and system
layoffs.

4
Ibid.
5
Current, February 17, 2009; info based on station audited financial statements/reports from CPB
6
APTS’ President Larry Sidman remarks to the PBS General Managers’ Planning Meeting, May 11, 2009.
Organization Location # of Layoffs 2009
WFYI Indianapolis, IN 5 January
WITF Harrisburg, PA 3/4 * February
WNED Buffalo, NY 3/9 * February
KQED/KTEH San Francisco, CA 30/14 * February
WMFE Orlando, FL 15 February
WETA Washington, DC 15 February
NHPTV Manchester, NH 5/4 * March
KAET Phoenix, AZ 13 April
WPBT Miami, FL 23 April
WHYY Philadelphia, PA 17 May
WNET New York, NY 50 May
KCET Los Angeles, CA 12 June
PBS Crystal City, VA 40 June
* Layoffs/Jobs left unfilled
Alaska has not been immune from layoffs. In July, 2009 KTOO laid of three staffers, left one
vacant position unfilled and reduced hours of two employees. In Fairbanks, nine staff positions
were lost.
Stations implementing layoffs are reeling from the general economic turndown which is
affecting most stations. However, there is no direct correlate between layoffs and a station’s
ranking on CPB’s Financial Strength Index. The layoffs are being made for short‐term course
corrections and, in some cases, to prepare stations for more radical organizational changes.
However, 57% of the least strong stations in CPB’s financial assessment are in markets that are
in deep recession. The system’s national organizations are also implementing staff cuts to
offset budget deficits; PBS (shown above) has reduced staff by 10%. In April, NPR announced a
second wave of layoffs since December 2008, affecting 77 staffers.
ii. State of Public Radio
While public radio is being significantly affected by the current economic recession, in many
cases, public radio is outperforming public TV in general financial health.
Based on its research (as of January, 2009, the mid‐point for most stations’ fiscal year), the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting predicted public radio would only fare slightly better than
public television, with revenue losses for the year of $126 million or 13% (compared to revenue
losses of 16% for public television) compared to FY 2008 results. While actual results for the
year won’t be available until late 2009, anecdotal reports from the public radio system suggest
a brighter picture.
Public radio audiences actually edged higher for Fall 2008, reaching an all‐time high weekly
audience. This growth in total audience is mitigated somewhat by flat to slightly declining
average time spent listening.
Radio audiences in general (including listening to commercial radio) have been falling steadily
since the late 1980’s, though this audience loss has been predominantly for stations on the AM
band.
In contrast, public radio listening grew steadily and strongly from the late 1970’s (when
consistent audience measurement was instituted), until a plateau was reached in 2004. This
audience plateau may be giving way to a return to a modest sustained growth trend in total
audience (as shown in audience measurements from 2006 through 2008). The aggregated
public radio service is now one of the most listened‐to formats on all radio, and its two
signature programs, “Morning Edition”, and “All Things Considered”, are respectively the
second and third most listened‐to programs on the radio.
Public radio’s recent audience growth has come predominantly for NPR News formatted
stations, which have grown significantly while public radio music formats (Classical, Jazz and
AAA) have remained flat – still a measure of health compared to losses across other radio
formats.
The affect of the economic recession on public radio seems to be stemming from indirect
impacts rather than market/service driven forces – audience size and loyalty.
Membership Revenue Is Stable To Slightly Higher
Anecdotally, on air fundraising for stations was steady and even slightly higher for both the fall
’08 and Spring ’09 drive cycle. This trend appears to be generalized to all formats, though, as
with audience growth, appears to favor NPR News format stations.
Underwriting is Flat
A January, 2009 article in the public radio trade publication Current reported that a mid‐year
(DEI) survey of 78 public radio stations found underwriting results varied from 20% growth to
20% losses, with slightly more than 50% reporting increases. In many cases, achieving the same
level of results for underwriting in 2009 as in 2008 can still be a problem for stations budgeting
for substantial increases.
(Underwriting problems for public radio were indeed serious for National Public Radio, which
executed a staffing cut of nearly 10% of total staff on the basis of a projected loss of $20 million
in underwriting compared to its record $46 million for 2008.)
Reported Problems From Other Sources
Stations with significant state funding (either from direct state appropriations or through
parent public university support) are reportedly facing significant cuts. A dramatic example of
this occurred when Miami University of Ohio essentially donated its long‐time NPR station,
WMUB, to Cincinnati Public Radio to eliminate the University’s subsidy to the station, which
resulted in eliminating all the local staff. Public radio stations jointly licensed to public
television stations reportedly are also being subjected to cuts to help meet the steeper
problems of the television operations.
Public radio stations licensed to other organizations (such as universities and state agencies) are
also having their operations affected by hiring and spending freezes implemented by the parent
organization.
As public radio stations enter FY2010, while audience and fundraising results have continued to
be encouraging, reports suggest extraordinary caution is being used in budgeting and revenue
projections due to continued uncertainty in the economy as a whole.
6. FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
“We are projecting a deteriorating Public Radio Capital (PRC) develops business models
financial picture if the for public media clients, who use them to attract
stations continue the status quo. financing for station acquisitions. PRC was retained to
This declining picture is consistent work with the G3 GM’s and finance staff to create ten‐
for all three entities.” year projections for each station. The business
modeling (which also analyzes overall industry trends)
Public Radio Capital
is done in collaboration with the stations, using data
provided by each station.
In this first phase, the goal was to depict the outcome of a current service model for each entity
without any partnership. These status quo scenarios illustrate the operations status of each
entity without any significant adjustments to format, organizational structure or any other
functions.
Key Findings
• Over the past several years public radio and TV operating revenues have stagnated
primarily due to a plateau in listener/viewer sensitive income.
• Operating expenses continue to grow and programming and administrative costs
comprise a significant portion of the operating expenses.
• TV revenues are expected to lag behind radio revenues.
• Government funding and other grants are projected to be relatively stable.
(See Appendix E for Financial Model Summary)
7. OPTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION
The “Nonprofit Mergers Workbook” (La Piana, Fieldstone Alliance, 2000), lays out three‐tiers of
increasing levels of integration, ranging from collaboration to complete merger:
Collaboration
A relationship whereby two or more organizations confer, share information, or work together
toward some mutual benefit while maintaining separate organizations, distributed decision‐
making power, and organizational autonomy. Such relationships typically do not involve
permanent organizational commitment.
Strategic Alliance
A strategic restructuring that involves a commitment to continue, for the foreseeable future,
shared or transferred decision‐making power, and some type of formal agreement.
• Administrative Consolidation
involves the sharing, exchanging, or contracting of administrative functions to increase
the administrative efficiency of one or more of the organizations. There is no change to
the corporate structure of any of the organizations involved.
• Joint Programming
involves the joint launching and managing of one or more programs to further the
FINAL REPORT, EVALUATION PHASE, ALASKA “G3” PROJECT
programmatic mission of the participating organizations. There is no change to the
corporate structure of any of the organizations involved.
Corporate Integration
A strategic restructuring that involves changes to corporate control or structure, including the
creation or dissolution of one or more organizations.
• Management Service Organization
involves the creation of a new organization in order to integrate administrative
functions and increase the administrative efficiency of the participating organizations.
• Joint Venture Corporation
involves the creation of a new organization to further a specific administrative or
programmatic end of two or more organizations. Partner organizations share
governance of the new organization.
• Parent‐Subsidiary
involves the integration of some administrative functions and programmatic services to
increase the administrative efficiency and program quality of one or more organizations
through the creation of a new organization or designation of a preexisting organization
to oversee the administrative functions and programmatic services of one or more other
organizations.
• Merger
involves the integration of all programmatic and administrative functions to increase
administrative efficiency and program quality of one or more organizations through the
dissolution of one or more organizations or the creation of a new merged organization.”

La Piana Levels of Integration

Corporate Integration
Level Three

Strategic Alliance
Level Two
Level One Collaboration
Alaska G3 Integration Options

Merger
More Integration
Individual organizations dissolved and new
licensee entity formed

All staff work for new entity

Negotiate CPB Community Service Grant

New branding required Consolidation

Might include one or more strategic alliances

Local Management Agreement (LMA) developed

Station Licensees remain unchanged

Possible restructuring of staff to support combined
functions
Some re‐branding may be needed

Formal Collaboration

Stations remain separate with current
structures

Pursue some functional and

programmatic collaboration (e.g.
experiment with statewide, multi‐

platform projects)
Less Integration
Status Quo

Stations maintain current

structures and current
collaborations

8. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS
i. Corporation For Public Broadcasting
CPB funding is divided into two categories, a base grant and incentive grant. For public
television, the current level of individual station base grants are $440,000, or a total of
$1,320,000 for KUAC, KTOO and APTI combined. CPB practice regarding station
consolidations or merger when it comes to the base grant is mixed. However a full merger
could potentially result in a single base grant, effectively a loss of $880,000 per year. CPB’s
current policy is that organizations are granted a waiver of 4 years. Any change in current
structure of the three organizations must take this into account. The organizations could
appeal to CPB for long‐term relief from this requirement. There also may be a design
structure, such as creation of a joint venture to operate the G3 holdings while the assets
continue to be held separately by the current license‐holders that could allow for continued
funding of three base grants. In broadcasting, when a second party operates a property in
behalf of the license‐holder, a “Local Management Agreement” or “LMA” is created (LMA’s
require application for and approval by the Federal Communications Commission).
ii. University Of Alaska Support For KUAC
University support for KUAC includes in‐kind and direct financial support. For 2010 the cash
support amounts to over $1 million. Any change in organizational structure would likely
need to address long‐term continuation of significant University support to protect the
viability of the enterprise.

iii. Strategic Alliance: Steps That Would Require No Additional Change In Corporate
Structure
• COMPLETE ALASKA ONE PROCESS BY INCLUDING ANCHORAGE
While there are flaws in the Alaska One model (the most significant apparently
has to do with a loss of local membership revenue from the KTOO audience), the
staff involved have created an effective, efficient way to deliver the traditional
mix of local and national public television content, including competent,
professional interstitial content. Completing the statewide service by adding
Anchorage would increase the efficiency of the Alaska One operation by
expanding the service to Anchorage without a commensurate increase in cost
(one service should be less expensive to create than two). There also appears to
be an opportunity to create a larger statewide impact for public television. To
the extent this effort reduces total investment in channel creation for the two
entities combined, it will allow saving/repurposing the current APTI effort of
creating a separate stream of programming.
• COMPLETE STATEWIDE COVERAGE OF 360 NORTH BY ADDING FAIRBANKS
Adding 360 North in Fairbanks and considering the combination of Alaska One
and 360 North as the public television service in Alaska is a powerful foundation
for exploiting the multicast capability of digital television and increasing the
presence of public media in the state.
• BUILD OUT THE COAST ALASKA MODEL TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE STATE
The Coast Alaska model is mature, with a seasoned team in place. A way to bring
the benefits of increased collaboration to the rest of the state is to scale out the
service, offering it in a formal way to the other public radio stations in the state.
• BUILD OUT UATV to provide university and other educational and public service
programming that allows UA to showcase research; education and public service
programs; and activities throughout the state.
iv. Other Potential Efficiencies/Increases In Effectiveness Might Or Might Not Require
Greater Consolidation/Merger
• APRN
The state‐wide public radio service calls on reporting resources from every
region of Alaska, and the collective news/editorial/reporter staff – distributed
widely among the stations and regions of the state – numbers upwards of 30
people. These journalists produce a remarkable amount of material for their
various local stations and also for the Alaska Public Radio Network. While most
of these journalists report primarily to local station management, they also
cooperate to cover such a large and diverse state and, through APRN, produce a
nightly half‐hour newscast. This cooperation is constant, but loosely organized
because for most news personnel the primary loyalty is to local news production.
Staff of the G3 stations might be more closely coordinated in a new structure to
increase the quantity and quality of state‐wide service.
• UNDERWRITING
A consolidated underwriting sales staff and effort would almost certainly result
in increased efficiency (having a single business office to manage and invoice
accounts) as well as effectiveness (A single rate‐card with potential for local‐only
buys would make it easier for organizations with state‐wide interests to work
with public media) – a coordinated state‐wide sales effort with larger scale could
also be significantly more powerful than the current local‐only configuration.
There have been several collaborative sales efforts undertaken among
unaffiliated public media organizations around the U.S. These efforts have
tended to be successful financially, but fail over time due to organizational
challenges (two examples are the Seattle and North Carolina collaboratives, both
of which were quite financially successful, but encountered significant difficulties
because of organizational issues between the partners. The Seattle effort
ultimately got dropped completely).
• MEMBERSHIP
Mechanical aspects of the membership fundraising activity clearly benefit from
scale. As the total number of contributors managed by a membership staff rises,
the cost of servicing each individual contributor declines. Combining the back‐
room membership function of the G3 stations would increase both efficiency
and effectiveness. Resources (staff as well as the cost of maintaining the
software programs themselves) currently assigned to the duplicative function of
running the separate programs could be reassigned to activities that could grow
revenue, from increasing contact with current contributors (events, customer
service, one‐on‐one work) to adding activities such as member acquisitions. One
task of consolidating the membership function will be to align the different
approaches each organization uses for pledge i.e., APTI conducts a traditional
public television membership program, including on‐air drives, while Alaska One
has moved away from on‐air pledge to more individualized donor cultivation).

9. Next Steps
i. Early/Mid‐July, 2009: The report detailing the findings of the evaluation phase will be
delivered to and reviewed by the G3 managers, followed by dissemination to members of
the Governance group.

ii. Mid‐late July: A meeting of the representative Governance group will be convened to
discuss results of the evaluation phase and plan next steps. If the group agrees to move
forward with an implementation phase, the report on the results of the evaluation will be
forwarded with the recommendation of the Governance group to each organization for
further action. The University of Alaska’s next Regents meeting is September 25, 2009,
and the expectation is that KTOO and APTI’s board will be able to act in the time leading
up to the Regents meeting.

iii. Possible Elements of Resolution to proceed

• Creation of a representative group to direct process, and return to Board with
recommendation for final vote before proceeding
• Recommendation to include selected organizational structure (on continuum of
strategic alliance to complete merger)
• Latitude given to negotiating group.
• Budget for process
• Time limit for process (up to six months?)

Sample Resolution
(APTI) commits itself for a period of six months to good faith negotiations toward a possible
merger with (KTOO’s organization name) and (the KUAC stations). Such a merger could include
a range of outcomes, with recommendation from the negotiating group, including creation of a
joint venture to operate the consolidated service on behalf of APTI, KTOO and the University of
Alaska. During this period (APTI) will not make any material changes affecting (APTI), its
leadership, or its commitments without fully informing, in advance, (KTOO) and (UA). (APTI’s)
delegation to the merger negotiation committee shall consist of our Executive Director and the
following (3) board members… At the end of the authorized negotiation period, if not sooner,
the committee will submit its report and recommendation to the full board. The six‐month
period may be extended by vote of the board, upon request of the negotiation committee.
iv. Communications regarding resolution decision: Press release/press briefing prepared in
advance and jointly distributed by the three organizations.

v. Possible Elements of Design/Due Diligence Phase

• Negotiation Committee meets monthly to monitor progress and provide direction to
process. Perhaps assigning roles to each member (e.g. negotiator‐creates wins for the
organization; community leader‐non‐profit/public service experience; statesman‐to
create compromise). Decision should be made about how open/closed to make the
process.

• G3 team (managers and consulting group) meets weekly

• Funding for the work could come from CPB ($150k); Rasmuson Foundation ($25k) or
through shared funding from the three organizations.

• Planning Retreat
Governance group plus G3 managers and consulting team
(Doug Johnson was suggested)
• Staff work groups – create a limited number of staff‐based task forces to design
elements of consolidated functions – e.g. Programming/Production, Membership,
Business, Underwriting, Technical/engineering. Coordination function of each group led
by respective leaders of function from each site working with process consultant.

vi. Sample Due Diligence and structural/operational issues to be resolved:

• Governance: Mission/vision of new organization; governance structure of successor
operation; legal structure; name of new entity; effective date of new structure,
including timing and legal work needed for change.

• Financial: share/confirm financial situation of partner organizations, including reviewing
three most recent audits; with support of staff working group, rough in operating
structure of financial/business function, including location and staffing size. For
example: review occupancy costs, leases, fixed assets, long term contracts, debt,
endowments, investments and other agreements that would affect the project.

• Human Resources: Process for selecting Executive Director; how the cultures of the
three staffs compare and a process for bringing the groups together; comparing salary
and benefits of respective organizations and plan for resolving differences; compare and
create pathway for resolving differences in personnel policies; agree on process for
including and informing staff during and subsequent to design and implementation
process; what will be the role and staffing of each of the current separate locations;
review pay plans, job descriptions and organizational charts.

• Capital/technical operations issues: General exploration of current assets including
space and transmission facilities, including current condition, ownership and
replacement horizon; asset sharing/interconnection issues (e.g. use of the UAF fiber ring
for interconnecting the three facilities). Inventory and current status of FCC licenses and
construction permits. Opportunities for shared information technology.

• Programming/Production Issues: What will the service look like? Completing the Alaska
One process; What is the brand and what does it look like? How are programming
FINAL REPORT, EVALUATION PHASE, ALASKA “G3” PROJECT
decisions made? What is the role of radio? TV? Other platforms? How are the various
working groups organized?

• Communications: Process for communicating with staffs; communications plan including
announcing new organization (with contingent plan for communicating if a decision is
made not to proceed).

• Development: Approach to TV pledge, major giving program, endowment, donor file
maintenance, software, underwriting rates and policies, sales force compensation.

Appendices
A. Alaska G3 White Paper
B. Foraker Report
C. Alaska Staff Survey Summary
D. Merger Case Studies
E. Financial Model Summary
F. Livingston Associates Interim Report

Appendix A
Alaska G3 White Paper
KTOO, KUAC, APTI

Abstract:

Alaska’s largest public broadcasting operations – KTOO‐Juneau, KUAC‐Fairbanks
and APTI‐Anchorage – separately face the same problem: The rising cost of
organizational and technical infrastructure inexorably squeezes out the ability to
produce fresh programming or invest in new media. Over time, news and public
affairs staffs and budgets have declined accordingly, even as commercial media
outlets have trimmed editorial operations for their own reasons. The result is a loss
of impact and relevance in local programming even as local programming becomes
more and more necessary to future survival and success. KTOO, KUAC and APTI
have decided to examine whether some formal operating combination might
substantially improve service to Alaskans and prospects for growth. This paper lays
out perceived merits and difficulties in a possible combination and posits questions
that must be addressed in considering the options. The question is: Could these
three entities provide better service together than they can separately?

Introduction:

Even as Alaska’s economy, population and broadcast audiences grow, Alaska’s
public broadcasters face tightening resource constraints. Even as improving
technology and social media platforms open new horizons in programming and
community‐building, mere survival occupies greater and greater attention. Even as
new technology permits media production and distribution costs to decline, stations
nonetheless struggle with diminished production capabilities. The search for
solutions must include an examination of whether a truly statewide identity, greater
size and scale, and the potential of increased efficiency would produce more and
better service for Alaskans.

Taken together, KTOO, KUAC and APTI serve more than 70 percent of Alaska’s
population and cover at least 42 of 60 legislative seats. State demographic
projections anticipate that, if anything, these proportions will grow in the decades
Alaska G3 White Paper 1

ahead. KTOO and APTI hold joint community licenses to broadcast on both radio
and television; KUAC holds a joint university license for both broadcast platforms.
The three organizations involve substantial public media assets:

¾ The Alaska Public Radio Network, collecting and distributing radio
programming through 25 member stations throughout the state;
¾ Alaska One, sharing television programming and distribution through KUAC‐
Fairbanks, KTOO‐Juneau and KYUK‐Bethel;
¾ Local television stations in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau;
¾ Five radio stations, including one each in Fairbanks and Anchorage and three
in Juneau;
¾ Gavel‐to‐Gavel legislative coverage;
¾ 360 North television channel distributing programming of Alaska and the
Circumpolar North;
¾ A film documentary production unit operating in Fairbanks;
¾ Several web sites attached to each organization;
¾ News reporting operations in all three communities.
Altogether the three organizations employ 82 full‐time staff and have annual
operating budgets totaling nearly $11 million. They hold substantial assets in
broadcast equipment, buildings and facilities, programming traditions, staff
experience, and community goodwill. The communities they serve together
encompass the resources of the University of Alaska’s three major academic units
and Alaska Pacific University, state government and the Alaska Legislature, and the
state’s major commercial centers.

The question is: Could these three entities provide better service together than they
can separately? Could the advantages of local connections and roots be maintained
while also operating on a larger scale? Could efficiencies be achieved that would free
substantial resources for production and programming?

A deeper question arises as well: Is there an Alaskan identity that would support the
combination of local operations in the state’s three largest cities into a unified
“Alaska Public Media” service? And could that unified service generate more
resources and support than three separate operations do now?

The general managers and boards of directors of the three organizations have been
asking these questions with greater frequency and urgency since the summer of
2008. They have met in several preliminary discussions and found enough
agreement to examine the question formally. They have posited options ranging
from shared backroom services to full organizational merger, and they have
decided, preliminarily, to adopt a wide scope in the investigations. No particular
form for combining operations has been discussed in any detail, but the logic of the
conversation so far has suggested a comprehensive re‐visioning of public media
services in Alaska’s three largest communities.


APTI recently has proposed and debated the concept of a “distributed network” as a
different approach to statewide news production and distribution. This concept
envisions a market commons wherein all players who agree to common standards –
including, potentially, non‐broadcasting players such as museums, universities,
bloggers or freelance reporters – provide content to others through that market.
This approach might be aligned with the anticipated production strength of a
combined public broadcasting entity to support broad distribution and sustained
creativity through these new arrangements.

Potential Opportunities

Foreseeable opportunities or benefits under a combined operation, depending how
it were structured and staffed, could fall into three broad categories: Mission,
Service and Efficiencies.

Mission:
• Unifying Alaskans; overcoming parochialism; broader mission
• Scale to invest in new media directions
• Stronger advocacy voice for public broadcasting
• Lessened competition within the state; unity in pursuing resources
• Single authority to act in the interests of the whole
• High‐profile, strong, unified board of directors

Service:
• Truly statewide news and public affairs production
• Impact with public and legislature; greater state support
• Scale to provide effective marketing, grant‐writing, support services
• Premium production possibilities; statewide production teams
• Television production, more programs
• Convergence on broader scale
• Strengthen both APRN and Alaska One

Efficiency:
• Share engineering, administration, operations, development
• Eliminate duplication: reporting, management
• All stations in Alaska One
• Scale to achieve greater specialization and performance
• Scale to offer better salaries and benefits, leadership development
• Opportunity to rebuild organizations

Potential Challenges


Potential difficulties under a combined structure fall into three categories:
Relational, Organizational and Operational.

Relational:
• Giving up local identities and governance
• Rural stations’ concerns
• Legislative concerns
• APBC considerations
• Staff fears of job loss or major change
• Is there significant overlap of visions?
• What becomes of Coast Alaska? ARCS? What role for KYUK?
• Attracting younger audiences

Organizational:
• Exactly what organization?
• Attracting top‐level board of directors
• Where would people work? Where is HQ?
• Protecting the licenses
• Are each organization’s finances strong enough?
• Budgeting and control
• Handling of reserve funds
• Managing a transition and maintaining service

Operational:
• Changing media climate
• Geography and distance
• More or fewer resources?
• Time horizons?
• Potential for loss of UAF support
• Effect on federal grants to stations
• General difficulty of mergers
• Coordinating development efforts
• Bigger may be clumsier; smaller may be more nimble
• Two TV control rooms
• Program scheduling

What Next?

Appendix B
Constituent Interviews-“G-3” Project

A Report Developed by The Foraker Group for
Livingston & Associates
May 8, 2009
Introduction
The Foraker Group was contracted by Livingston & Associates to conduct constituent interviews
as a part of a larger exploration of possibilities for KUAC, KTOO and APTI to collaborate and
better serve their mission of public broadcasting in Alaska. Constituents to be included in this
interview process were identified by the General Managers of each organization. Interviews were
conducted during the months of April and May 2009. Constituents included current and past
board members, Community Advisory Boards, community leaders, legislators and donors. A
total of sixty-six individuals were interviewed, thirty-two were individual interviews and the
remainder in small groups. Each interview was focused around seven questions with minimal
explanation or preamble. The goal was to get a “top of mind” response from each participant. In
group interviews, the first response from each person was noted as his or her “top of mind”
reflection. All but two interviews were conducted in person in Juneau, Fairbanks and
Anchorage. The two remaining interviews were conducted over the phone.
Questions-Format for Interview
Introduction Statement
In order to increase the capacity of public broadcasting in Alaska, (KUAC, KTOO, APTI) the
largest public broadcast organizations are reviewing options to position their critical mission in
Alaska for the brightest future.
One of the options being discussed is whether to integrate, consolidate or even merge the three
organizations to increase efficiency and better serve the public.
The boards and executive staff of each institution have eagerly agreed to review all possibilities
and develop a plan.
Your input is needed and appreciated.
Interview Questions
1. What has been your past involvement with public broadcasting? How many years?
2. What is public broadcasting’s mission? Why is that mission important to you?
3. If these organizations develop a new relationship, what would be the greatest potential
opportunities? What would be the greatest potential threats?
4. What services, content, efforts would make current and potential supporters—including the state
legislature—more supportive of public radio and television in Alaska?
5. How could a re-imagined Alaska public radio and television system help fill the news and public
affairs vacuum in the state?
6. How would this new arrangement impact rural stations and audiences?
7. What would be your vision of a successful merger? What efficiencies and/or enhanced services
could be achieved? Could you have a role to assist in this planning?
Interview Summary
The following report summarizes the consensus and alternative views from the constituent
responses for each question. When possible differences based on geography, organization, or
constituent status is noted.
1. Past involvement – An analysis of the constituents interviewed shows that all but three
were significant community or statewide leaders. All but three were current members of
their local organization, and two-thirds primarily listened to public radio. Also, thirty-two
of the interviewees are or have served on the board or the advisory board of a local
organization. Regardless of their past involvement and local community, most
constituents held similar views on the direction for these organizations.
2. Mission – The consensus as to the mission of public broadcasting was overwhelming. In

my opinion, this is one of the clearest understandings of an institution’s “brand
proposition”, or the public’s expectations of an organization’s purpose and how they
deliver on that promise. In the interviews, I documented the first words that came to mind
when I asked the question regarding mission. In high to low sequence the words most
used were: news/journalism, local voice, connecting local-state-nation-world, unbiased,
and quality. There was almost unanimous agreement that public broadcasting does very
well in accomplishing its mission. However, many felt that local and statewide news has
diminished over the past few years, both in terms of quality and quantity.
3. Partnership opportunities – A strong majority, fifty-eight, felt that the radio programming
should remain local, or at least seem locally controlled. Almost as many constituents
were positive about some consolidation and generally were open to looking at options, as
long as the options would be financially feasible. Sixty constituents specifically
suggested that TV be merged and there was strong consensus that the current Alaska One
system should include APTI as a first step. While there was consensus for stronger
partnership between these entities, there was less confidence in a successful merger.
Many constituents had been involved with past mergers in public broadcasting, or with
other organizations, and felt that in most instances it did not work as planned. There was
also strong concern voiced from outside of Anchorage that if the headquarters were in
Anchorage, the rest of the state would lose its voice. From the Anchorage perspective,
there was equal concern that if it were headquartered in Anchorage, the rest of the state
would stop providing financial support and rely too heavily on that region for funding.
4. Public support – There was not strong reaction from most interviewed about the impact
of such a merger/partnership on public financial support. There was some consensus that
if the local voice were diminished, then local membership support would decline. There
was no indication from either corporate underwriters or legislators that increased funding
would be on the horizon as a result of some enlightened strategic partnership. Actually,
one of the larger underwriters suggested their support may decrease as a result, especially
if the local voice were diminished.
5. News vacuum – If any question evoked a constant message from constituents, it is that
news is a core function of public broadcasting and quality news is what draws almost all
of those interviewed into passionate support and appreciation. Only three people
mentioned a perceived “liberal bias”. Most truly think that public broadcast news is as
unbiased as possible. Of the state’s most influential leaders we interviewed, all voiced
extreme loyalty to and confidence in NPR journalism. NPR was identified as the source
they trust most to learn about news.
Another theme often stated when we asked this question concerned the use of new
technologies, especially social media. These technologies were mentioned by over half
of the constituents without the interviewer ever mentioning this issue. This fact is
impressive since the majority of those interviewed were in their late fifties.
Brian Rogers, Chancellor UAF, strongly urged that whatever new structure for news
emerged, he felt that UAF and UAA’s Journalism schools be part of the partnership for
the envisioned news service. Many individuals mentioned Huffington Post unaided, as a
possible model for a new news service based on web research, then journalistic
verification for balanced stories. As stated before, many individuals commented that
while they appreciate local (as in community and statewide) news coverage, they feel the
quality and quantity have diminished too much over the past years.
6. Urban-rural inclusion in conversations – Most of those interviewed have vast experience

working in the geo-politics of the state and were sympathetic to conducting a process that
is transparent and open, yet efficient and focused on the task at hand. There was
consensus that all the public broadcast organizations should be informed on progress of
the G3 Group. There was also consensus that others should not be at the table until that
group identifies a real vision of what they will do.
7. Most likely scenario to move ahead – While responses were diverse, a consensus of a
best model seemed to emerge. First, almost all were concerned about maintaining a local
voice. All would like to see a more effective statewide news service and additional
resources in key communities for better statewide and local news.
Concerning a complete merger of the three entities, there was no consensus. However,
among the most influential people in the constituent group – those I would categorize as
the most capable business leaders – there was consensus for consolidation, even if some
broadcasts like radio appear to be controlled at the local level. There was also a
consensus that consolidation would probably not increase public support. However, many
felt that there may be better ability to increase federal and maybe state support if the new
enterprise were to deliver on a strategy for a more robust news service; that enhanced
news service alone may be the key to increased public support.
Finally, a vast majority of those interviewed were intrigued with the possibility of new
technologies and accepted the reality that “broadcast” does not just mean radio or TV. As
a part of discussion about new technologies, another consensus developed that the
constituents public broadcast should be attracting are under the age of 40. Most in this
age group have a different view of where to get information and what community means.
(Younger generations think of community as the device they hold in their hand as much
as their local town.)
If I were asked to summarize the recommended path of the strongest consensus of those
interviewed, it would be as follows:
• Merge TV broadcast into Alaska One and house the core of that function at UAF;
• then increase the capacity of Coast Alaska or create a new “Coast-like” entity that could
perform backroom functions for additional organizations;
• and finally either in a Coast-like entity, or some new entity, create a virtual news service,
connected to the University Journalism schools, and based in the newest technologies.
While these suggestions seem to have the strongest consensus, I would continue to urge that
Livingston and Associates look at all options. If it can be verified through vigorous scenario
planning that a complete or partial merger could be done without too many unintended
consequences, and where local voices are still heard, then I think a majority of those I
interviewed would be supportive. I think the approval is in such detail.
More detailed responses from interviews are available on the attached spreadsheet. In my
judgment, the responses listed above represent the intent of those interviewed for this project.
Past Mission Why Merger What How fill Impact What would new
Involvem important? opportuniti would news rural organization look
ent es/ increase and like?
challenges public public Best case for
support? affairs? merger, new
structure
Donor, In-depth, Beneficial, Depends, Used Bring in Quality not
listener, journalism, small corps would new now, keep quantity; determine
volunteer; neutral, population- like, media informed TV purpose; must
mostly probing, civil big need; members be good for whole
radio; love dialog, better need more may not; state
AK informed-not info on rest more
as good as of state, national
use to be help state support?
connect
Profession In-depth Standardize Key to Do even Should Have common
al, reporting d business survival, better benefit purpose, culture;
member, info; TV practice, especially with alter smaller good examples
volunteer; more benefit Juneau & voices communit Denali Pipeline
hard to educational; underwritin Fairbanks (Carl ies
work has been g; more Rove)
with- better, pluses than
underwriti national minus, web
ng rules biased- radio is weak,
(30 sec better than need young
norm)- TV voices
poor
donor
relations-
too thin
infrastruct
ure; radio
Donor, Thoughtful, Good, cost Doing More Could be
listener, unbiased-TV share; structure govt lightening
Radio less good; mange right key support rod; keep
become more expectations other
like BBC , loss local informed
control?
Listener, Public Efficiency Not outside Get Could be New technology,
leadership discourse, good ting, Anchorage, statewide perceived, structure matters,
donor, good music, already too understand news, keep in may have wrong
volunteer losing AK lean?, audience communi loop staff for transition,
Radio bad, KTOO running on more ty look at new media-
better news fumes, news/voi blogs
and TV don’t merge ces
radio
structure
Listener, Information, Shame if May be Could be Rural Review right
donor, news, in- APRN beneficial to good would not structure statewide
past depth-doing collapses, institutional opportuni feel and in each
board, good job transition funders, ty for effects, community
volunteer, hard on sharing staff news may
leadership staff, not all good benefit
circle employees some
radio in loop of
changes,
statewide
xenophobia
TV, Non It’s time, High profile One Have One board and staff,
donor, commercial, competition board could place to advisory advisory board for
CAC, researched, demands help, more get close boards in TV and locations
in-depth, full change for govt support to truth, other
story TV, use it’s the communit
more mission ies
technology
staff Journalism No mergers Possible loss News is Should Merge TV, radio
for radio, TV seem to of local center of not stays local;
less branded really work, member radio, impact determine how to
make sure support must be create efficiencies-
any new best Coast AK model?
one does possible
Listener, Community Some states Poll top More Be Only merge if it
volunteer, engagement, did it right, leaders and cultural careful, builds AK
2 radio 1 awareness, copy see if it sow, engage community.
TV neutral voice, success, would really more early
in-depth, merge back help viewpoin
unbiased, office only, ts
broader expand
perspective community
building
function,
structure
Not a Serve Thinks it Not at all, it Thinks No worry Merge into one,
listener underserved, the only may protect there is a make sure small
especially way they it real need remote villages can
rural AK will survive to have a get coverage
balanced
news
service,
mentione
d BBC
Listens Program what Worried I thought Real No worry Mergers are hard to
and no one else about losing you were need for do well
occasional will, like regional, here to ask news
member to NPR news, local for more service
KTOO not less so local perspective money
KAKM, ALPR news
no TV
Landlord, Educate TV may Would Break Don’t let Seen s “left leaning”
reader for public, broad need to go benefit, big boundari Anchorag work on balance;
blind/volu issues/perspe away or funders es e be seen find people who will
nteer, ctives, news, find new would love between as bully; pay
member; national, model, it TV and potential
radio state, local underwritin radio; distance
g has have education/
become subscribe communic
advertising, r only ation
be access to
consistent, some
Anchorage news
overbuilt
for what it
does, find
way to
create
efficiencies,
more
education
on TV,
engage
parents
structure
Past Education, Good idea, Could help, Focus on No Backroom merger
board, international, may create won’t hurt, attracting problem (Coast model) may
fundraisin national, fear outside help younger for be easiest; will take
g, state, local, Anchorage, underwriting audience Anchorag time, use current
volunteer, excellent great if no s to e, may be economic realities
listener, services negative news, perceived to position merger-
member, impact on more TV as bad for merge all the way
some TV local nature, news rural AK
mostly go communit
radio statewide ies
radio and
TV, build
statewide
perspective
APRN Inform, Brings Positive, Needed Reality of Merger will likely
board, educate; hate together work for for news, economy result in loss in
likes we lost AK, statewide regional should is forcing outlying areas; will
coalitions, enjoy most issues, build funding increase something create fear.
Kohanic shows statewide capacity to happen,
influence community, be
Radio danger if transparen
Anchorage t, no
gets too secrets
much
control
structure
CAC, News and Loss of Post Need to General Don’t grow APTI,
volunteer, info, good independent mergers hire 3 public, already too weak;
donor, tension local, editorial never as new audience whatever done, get
radio state, nation, viewpoint good as journalist will not structure right first
world harder good anticipated, s no, use care/notic time
Doing better content APRN to e, only
than ever harder to merger did provide managers
before on find, losing not increase much
some parts diversity, funding more
like need to local
international, connect to content;
not enough social time now
funding media to create
America
n BBC,
huge
vacuum
local
news,
Listener, Quality Check if Need to Partner Engage New, statewide
member program, anything identify way with K- and quick board, more
underwrite balance makes to educate 12; grant powerful
r; radio “liberal arts sense, if local people to start Start with vision and
more than education” there is an new mission
TV audience, program
content ming?
more
important
than
structure
Listener, Inform, Look past Need to do Big Discuss Watch multiple
member, educate, very obvious, something potential with all constituencies, go
since egalitarian, what about about for stations, beyond current
beginning, informed alliance journalism increased but keep thinking, new
balanced about world with AND? disappearing funding the three partners, make
and culture , news issue in detailed things easier for all
big in all conversati
circles. ons
structure
Listener, Unbiased & Need to First Think Three Successful mergers
member, thoughtful determine determine that news develop focus on three
some TV news; do very sustainable where going is the vision, things, vision,
mostly well economic then stay core of then economy and
radio model, focused on service include passion, no cookie
focus on that, if good others cutter
next approach
generations; money
build would
bridges to follow
them
Listener, Media that Local Saw no Things Thinks There have been
member, helps us boards rich impact absolutel current is successful mergers
some TV think, asset, positive or y news is right when everyone had
mostly balanced, powerful negative the core approach same values and
Radio does it very especially when KSKA vision
well for rural and KAKM
communitie merged
s; protect at
all cost
Donor, Programs not Make sure Easier for Would Keep Watch how different
occasional on local , Native underwriters take time open door technologies and
listener, commercial, included, , emphasis and effort to all implementation
some TV does it very only really on to be impact merger;
mostly well interested in communities balanced, would hate to see
radio funding where we make individuality given
communitie have sure it up for consolidation
s with employees/i does not
presence nterest, may look
hurt reactiona
membership ry. Get
s fluent in
new
technolo
gy
structure
Not a News, See Dedicated Agree Regionali The AT&T merger
consumer, national opportunity funders will that news sm seems with SCB went very
involved international for merger, remain, at al should be less with well, adopted the
as funder, programs; efficiencies levels enhanced younger AT&T name, but
almost no does well ; need to generation the SCB culture
listening become remained the
or viewing fluent in dominant culture.
new Culture followed
technolo CEO
gies
all long Local, Already on Legislature Local Potential Not in favor of
time diverse, edge may see it as news not for merger except TV
listeners news, public financially, positive; TV as good, statewide
volunteers engagement, could make fundraising use new programm
donors, community, worse; good is gone technolo ing,
most new broad to gies, material
board perspective, collaborate maintain voice in
members; “our stories”, with TV but local urban
radio most programs not not radio; if program areas
do not heard controlled ming
watch TV elsewhere— in
was better, Anchorage,
news is no good,
suffering, like how will it
three effect what
channels we
see/hear?
TV money
pit
structure
Member Content to Save admin Centralize KTOO Have His firm; pick right
,radio, no broad costs is development can not strategy partner, same
TV sections of good, more , finance; do for mission, no change
community; s public sometimes investigat engageme in product delivery,
stations good financing, being part of ive nt staff sees it as
idea, better local something reporting something bigger
choice for content, not bigger is now, with more options
young one brand good;
statewide bigger, more
influential
board
Member, Wide Coast AK Not good for Bias that Everybod Flexible, common
no TV viewpoints, good model, local donors, public y in understanding,
radio non better good for radio is equitable, partner
commercial, remote state underwriters left assets to table,
in depth, like access; but govt leaning; appreciated, agree to
talk not music larger public resolve conflicts
as much markets benefits
could from
gobble-up public
local discussio
identity n
Dad Community Would be Larger In crisis Determine KTOO split was a
involved, based, news nice to learn funders will for benefits successful
since info, about rest of like, local balanced for other “merger”; worry
inception, individual state, may suffer news, communit about leadership all
Haines voice; do connect Live ies from Anchorage
Juneau, very well, performers, public
Listen need younger may forums
volunteer, audience become on TV?;
radio no Anchorage make
TV centric sure all
points of
view are
heard
structure
Members, Community May need to May reduce Golden Bring in BB/BS, Coast AK
volunteer, together, work member opportuni before Special Olympics
listener; broad views, together support; ty for report
radio and news, not all better; trust factor “voice of done
TV liberal; does remind state reason”;
good job of things opportuni
that connect ty for
not divide “industry
us; to re-
connect
Does great Likes Keep in loop
job, idea
balanced
Radio
Always Likes Keep in loop
listen, idea
like, left
leaning be
more
balanced
Radio
Listener, Building Merge into Would be News Stay the Must have right
board, community, one TV plus if done could be coarse, leadership on board,
member, does it well signal, radio right done TV then and staff
balanced local level and include
radio,
must be
done
right
structure
Most Non Don’t see Underwritin Agree Should Some hospital
equal TV, commercial, problem g good, great invite, not mergers (Coast)
Radio, news, with locals could opportuni require,
most 10 educational, merger, as be ty and invite
yr. multiple long as upset/radio, need right way
minimum, perspectives, some local need more
most 30 yr cultural content; money
exchange; more
local news dominant
suffers, more communitie
rural AK, s win, must
Native, HD get structure
problem, right from
more first,
thoughtful University/
conservative KUAC
viewpoint mission
problems,
become
training
ground
structure
Most News, many Get more Must keep News Invite, Merge TV, not radio
equal TV, viewpoints, voices local flavor underfun may have
Radio, Connecting around to keep ded, try trouble
minimum communities, state, attract members, doing it since
15 yrs, local, non young, use new as shared local
most 30 commercial; stream info, technologies service, KUAC
yrs. Watered being at , decline in public only has
down news, UAF a AK News misconce advisory
great staff problem, nightly, less ive’s board and
quality, good only change TV Universit rest have
community if real donations, y role stronger
content savings, especially board
could lose from Juneau
identity, TV (fundraising
less done in
important, F’banks)
sometimes
need to
spend to
make,
untapped
need and
potential
structure
Past news Valuable info Help TV Not hard to Find way Small Use Journalism
director and content, statewide, be statewide to partner stations Department, big
KTOO, local become and with could asset, TV too
involved programming repeater and maintain AND, remain in highbrow in
11 yrs, ,; KUAC do more local with Miner, some Anchorage, AK one
poor weak link, no local technology; etc, control is more relevant
relationshi real niche content; could get nonprofit with around AK
p now could lose funding and for technolog
with UAF talented from profit y
people, 3 research partners,
way departments research
communicat at UAF to guys to
ion present theirre-edit
content blogs
(Huffingt
on Post),
update
info on
web
Listener, Quality Backroom Some Hard to Fairbanks, If it does not save
30 yr, public media, functions; underwriting find time negotiatio money then why do
balanced noncommerci TV, use could in TV n team it, need lots of local
al, balanced, digital benefit, not schedule weak, dialog, if KUAC or
news, in- channels; sure about for more compared part leaves
depth; doing University other local to University public
great, need to not doing funders, content, Anchorag dialog needed
attract young good job, may upset need e,
audience fear of loss local reporters, Fairbanks
of control, members Universit could
fear y should lose.
everything pay
going to more, get
Anchorage all
stations
to feed
into news
service
Alaska Staff Survery Summary
Appendix C

REPORT
ON
RESPONSES TO STAFF SURVEY
KTOO, APTI, KUAC
Tom Livingston
June 9, 2009

In the process of exploring options for greater cooperation between KTOO, Juneau, APTI, Anchorage,
and KUAC, Fairbanks, consultations were conducted with each of the staffs. In addition, a follow‐up
survey was made available to all staff, with 21 of the approximately 70 staff members completing the
on‐line survey.

The purpose of this document is to summarize responses to the survey. Responses were overwhelmingly
professional, thoughtful and constructive. We have used a summary format to respect the promised
confidentiality of responses.

What, if any, additional information would be helpful for you to have as the
process proceeds?
COMMUNICATION

Total Responses (16)

The largest number of responses (7) emphasized the need for lots of communication, including regular
updates on progress and what is happening.

An additional four responses dealt with questions related to staffing, including two that specifically
mentioned the departure of the APTI Chief Engineer. An underlying concern from these respondents
was for clarity and fairness in making any personnel decisions.

The remaining responses (5) included: a concern that the financial analysis confirm that all three stations
are solvent, an interest in knowing what the other station staffs were saying, an interest in
understanding the impact on radio, including APRN and Coast Alaska, a concern about rural stations, and
a question about what was driving the entire process.

What are potential upsides of possible cooperation/ consolidation/merger
between KTOO, APTI and KUAC?

EFFICIENCY

Total Responses (19)

Twelve dealt with efficiency, including a focus on reduced redundancy of functions (e.g. a single traffic
department for invoicing underwriting), and being able to redeploy savings into increased production.
Three cited improved television service for the whole state, and two mentioned a benefit from helping
unify the state. Three respondents mentioned upsides, but as potential or uncertain whether those
upsides could be realized. One respondent answered “none” (the count for total responses is higher
than 19 because some respondents mentioned more than one item).

What are potential downsides of possible cooperation/consolidation/ merger
between KTOO, APTI and KUAC?
INDIVIDUAL/ORGANIZATIONAL/LOCALISM/FINANCIAL

Total responses (19), many multiple responses (a total of 42 downsides were mentioned)

Individual/staffing/morale (13), including: Loss of jobs, loss of competent managers, loss of motivation,
poor morale, unfair redistribution, low buy‐in, loss of engineering staff, relocation.

Organizational issues (10): Complexity, differing mission, differing operational policies, inability to work
together, lack of focus.

Localism/Local control (7): Loss of identity, loss of localism, loss of local control, loss of tv channel

Financial (6): Could cost more, weakening vs. strengthening, long term savings horizon/short‐term crisis,
increased travel costs, loss of fundraising (i.e. Alaska One losses in Juneau fundraising).

Is there anything you believe we should not overlook as we proceed?
DON’T FORGET THE MEMBERS/LISTENERS/VIEWERS

Total responses (18)

Responses quite varied. Concerns about donors/viewers (4); APTI merger experience (3); need for strong
planning (2); protect radio (2); not win‐win; not well thought out; why are we doing this; changing
dynamics (ongoing staff turnover); need for buy‐in; consider rural needs; value of local tv production; (is
this a) unilateral (process); differences between communities; needs marketing push; potential loss of
fundraising; need national search for President.


What, if any, additional thoughts, questions, or concerns do you have about
what you’ve seen or heard so far? (any additional input?)
THANKS FOR ASKING

Total responses (18)

Responses were extremely varied and comprehensive in keeping with the open‐ended question. Several
(5) mentioned appreciation for the opportunity to give input. Four responses dealt mainly with the
process (ranging from “good process”, to concerns about specifics such as how much time was spent at
each place, and that this might be a done deal; (only) One response was mostly negative (mergers don’t
work); One gave a detailed programming/channel layout design.

Merger Case Study: Public Media Connect, Inc.

(Dayton-Cincinnati)
Time Frame: October 2007-May 2009
Entities Involved: Think TV and CET
Background/Current Status:
• The Boards of CET (Greater Cincinnati Public Television) and Think
TV (Greater Dayton Public Television) were the principals in the
merger.
• Talks began one year before formal action on the merger.
• In Dayton, the GM initiated the idea and at CET the Board was the
driver rather than GM.
• The Boards announced their desire to merge in October 2008; then
The two Boards announced the specifics of the merger in May 2009
as a regional, non-profit public broadcasting and media corporation
called Public Media Connect, Inc.
• David Fogarty was selected to lead the new organization but Think
TV and CET will retain their identities and continue their locally-
based services with staff and facilities in the current locations.
• Over last 15 months, 8 positions have been lost at Dayton due to
attrition and termination directly tied to the merger.
• In Cincinnati, staff had already been downsized, and 3 staffers ended
their employment.
I. Strategy/Vision/Language
• The model for merger was conceived as a hybrid of a holding
company model (keeping 2 organizations alive) and a supporting
organization relationship. There were concerns about branding and
local fund raising and neither of the two boards wanted the
perception of being taken over.
II. Rules of Engagement

• Both stations spent a lot of time in the build up of the relationship,
two trustees from both sides met regularly with the GMs for about a
year helping to establish rapport and develop trust. Then the boards
met to say continue the conversations
• The last 15 months of talks involved a 10-person group consisting of

5 members from each board and GMS who met once every 2-3
months.
• A consultant was brought in as a facilitator for the conversations.
• CFO’s were informed of the possible merger early on about 1 ½
years out; a year out the Dayton station informed the other staff and
did a presentation to the community members.
III.Communications
A. External-
• It is important to have a vocabulary and shared language about the
merger.
• The consistent language of the deal was around strengthening
services to the region, along with improving operating efficiencies.
“improved finances are a great motivation but to say there is an
opportunity for better services will be more important.”
• Language used around the merger included phrases like: “shared
regional vision,” “best opportunity to grow local programming and
educational services” “shared leadership” “complementary
strengths” “continue to innovate and exceed the expectations of our
audiences.”
B. Internal-
• “Internal messages should not be built solely on an improved
financial situation because in the end one of the entities may be in
better shape than another and if so, it skews the conversation.”
• The process with the staff had the tone of: acknowledging the
conversation, allaying fears but also noting there would be changes.
• However, Dayton management told staff the purpose of the merger
was not to reduce staff.
IV. Board Management

• This is all about the board, no matter what the motivation of the G.M.
• In early presentations to the board the focus was on defining what
were the options: co-existing, collaborating, coordinating or
something else. It was helpful to the board members to “put
everything on the table.”
• As the deal got closer issues that we thought were resolved, re-
emerged and in the end the conversation gets very candid.
• There’s always one trustee who disagrees or presents an
insurmountable obstacle. Such as trying to define the future
operation too much; that comes from the need to have certainty. “In
those cases, it is another trustee that must call the other board
member to account.”
V. Funding Support
• CPB was willing to fund the two stations with full CSG base grants
during a multi-year transition period while the new entity finds time
to show revenue and build operational efficiencies.
VI. Lessons Learned

• Most Board members serve out of allegiance to the organization
and/or the community. If the message continues to be focused on
service vs. financial efficiencies, it gives the Board member an out
to say the decision focused on service to the community rather than
financial considerations.
• The leadership issues were very important and deciding how to go
about selecting a CEO is critical no matter what happens
organizationally.
• For staff, the clearer the picture of skill sets that will be needed
going forward, the better (CPB)
• Staff needs time to process what is happening; can be a tendency to
retreat back to doing business as usual after a merger is agreed
upon (CPB).
• Mergers take longer than expected unless it is imperative.
• Having message points for various audiences is critical.
Merger Case Study: Ideastream
Merger Case Study: Ideastream (Cleveland)

Time Frame: Fall 1999-July 2001
Entities Involved: WVIZ and WCPN
Background/Current Status:
• Jerry Wareham (formerly CEO of television station WVIZ) and Kit
Jensen (formerly CEO at radio station WCPN) were the principals in
the merger.
• Each station had a governing board and a combined staff of 75
persons.
• Each station was successful in its own right, but they were not as
well known as some of the other non-profits in the city.
• Talks began two years before formal action around how to exploit
new technologies; similarities in intent, vision and purpose.
• Ideastream is considered a successful merger process and now has
a consolidated infrastructure.
• Ideastream has a variety of viable partnerships (content,
distribution).
• Ideastream’s combined capital campaign brought in $30 million in
2005, exceeding the goal.
• Combined radio and television fundraising campaigns in 2007
brought in a half million dollars more than the previous year.
• Currently on pace with downwardly revised 2009 revenue goals;
expect 2010 to be tougher.
• Following merger combined boards for a total of 65 members; with
attrition, board is currently at 40 persons with mid-high 30’s the
eventual goal.
• The overall goal was to “define a sustaining purpose for public
broadcasting” in Cleveland
• The question kept in mind throughout the process was: How will
bringing our organizations together lead to more impact?
• The financial motivations to merge included: increased efficiencies
in marketing, fundraising and grant seeking. Additionally, both
stations wanted to replace or refurbish their buildings.
• From their efforts, a new service strategy emerged that placed a
high value on local service partnerships and focused on content
development that reflects the needs and interests of the local
community.

• WVIZ and WCPN were initially joined by the other public stations in
the community to talk about collaboration/consolidation and
brought in a consultant to facilitate the conversations.
• Ultimately, WVIZ and WCPN wanted to move faster than the other
stations so while the other stations were invited to rejoin at anytime
WVIZ and WCPN “moved forward with intent,” asking and getting
approval of their boards to combine WCPN and WVIZ to form a new
public media entity.
• Each station appointed members to an implementation team (which
included the GMs) and the Cleveland Foundation was asked to loan
an officer to the planning process to facilitate meetings of the two
committees. Note: Foundation facilitation/involvement was seen as
key to the success of the discussions (see more under Funding).
• The implementation team met “in secret”; signing non-disclosure
statements and meeting about 5 times in nine months.
• Each station had three people on the team: Statesman (to create
compromise; Negotiator (create wins for the organization);
Community Leader (experience with non-profit, public service
experience).
• GMs met together regularly outside of the committee and
implementation team meetings and presented the implementation
team with several merger options and offered to recuse themselves
from whatever decision was made. The implementation team asked
Wareham and Jensen to jointly decide their roles in the new entity.
• The implementation team presented the final plan to the two station
boards in October 2000. The former entities were disbanded on
June 30, 2001 and then new organization, Ideastream was
incorporated on July 1, 2001.
III. Communications
A. External
• All communications were handled by Kit and Jerry with input from
the board chairs and implementation team.
• Met with all major funders immediately following the merger
announcement.
B. Internal-
• One other executive staffer was appointed to serve as a proxy for
the GM in case they were unavailable for implementation team
meetings.
• However, other senior staff was not aware of the meetings and
discussions until a month before the Board’s final vote on merger.
• Senior Staff were told they would keep their jobs; when they were
brought into the process, they helped with good advice and input
that informed the final structure.

• Boards can get hung up with detail and there were a couple of times
when the egos (of the board committee) got in the way.
• The Implementation team did not include the Board chairs in order
to keep them “removed enough to be judicious at the end.”
V. Funding Support
• The team raised $1.5 million for Ideastream within 6 weeks of the
announcement.
• Funds were raised from the Cleveland Foundation, George Gund
Foundation, the Knight Foundation and CPB.
• The involvement of the Cleveland Foundation officer as facilitator
provided a distinct advantage for the process because implicit in
their involvement was the understanding that ultimately there would
be some funding from the Foundation.
• CPB funding was not directed to the merger process but rather to a
community needs research project: The Listening Project.
• The Ideastream partnerships and new content have sparked new
revenues and new funding relationships.
VI. Lessons Learned

• The process can take a long time.
• There was passive-aggressive behavior on the part of staff at
different points in the process and is to be expected.
• Have the courage to “start from zero.”
• Community leaders have to “own” the organization.
• Management can have vision and help lead the organization, but
ultimately the organization is a community asset that should outlive
us all.
Merger Case Study: Iowa Public Radio

Time Frame: 2004-2007
Entities Involved: WOI-AM/FM at Iowa State University (Ames/Des Moines);

WSUI-AM and KSUI-FM at the University of Iowa (Iowa City/Cedar Rapids) and
KUNI-FM and KHKE-FM at the University of Northern Iowa (Cedar Falls/Waterloo)
Background/Current Status
• 2003 Board of Regents of the State of Iowa agreed to pursue the
exploration of a consolidation/merger between the three University-
licensed public radio operations.
• The conversation of merger was precipitated by one of the station
GM’s suggesting it to the Board of Regents.
• The combined operations had 60 staff members and annual revenue
of approximately $6 million.
• Winter 2004, Regents hired Livingston Associates to develop the
RFP to identify a consultant to provide a merger plan.
• March 2004, the Board of Regents hired a consultant to develop the
merger plan which was developed over 9 months. The plan
recommendations included: the consolidation of the stations under
a “central authority,” the development of regional structures for
programming and fundraising and the centralization of key functions
of the new entity (Finances, Technical Operations, Membership and
Executive office).
• The new entity was called Iowa Public Radio and is governed by an
Executive Council consisting of a representative from each of the
three state universities.
• An Executive Director was hired in September 2005 through a
national search conducted by Livingston Associates.
• The universities gave the stations $2.4 million a year at the time of
the merger and now contribute $1.7 million a year.
• In 2008, Livingston conducted the search to replace the ED after she
stepped down for health reasons. The current Executive Director is
Mary Grace Herrington the former Assistant Vice President for
Advancement Operations at Creighton University.
• The merger language focused on public radio’s role in enhancing
the quality of life of the Iowans.
• Responded to the questions of loss of localism (most applicable to
the news operations) with a reminder that a regional or state-wide
approach to news can be very relevant to the people of Iowa by

looking at the broader context of issues and focusing on issues
analysis that ties a regional or state story to local interests.
• Also repeatedly said this was not a merger driven by fiscal
difficulties; not an emergency, but a way to make the service better.

• Each Regent selected one or two people to work out policy issues
around the conceptual framework.
• While the consultant guided the conversations, there was an
expectation that the plan would evolve as discussions progressed.
• When the ED was hired, she focused on detail; she brought in
consultants (to focus on HR, change management) and elevated
some people within the stations to be part of the senior team;
eventually, the ED hired some new people.
• IPR initiated a “Listening Project” by conducting surveys of
members and the general audience and convening community
meetings.
• The plan was to re-deploy the three station GMs with responsibility
for operations, finance and marketing. But two of the managers left
early in the process.
• There had been plans to consolidate the operations into a single
headquarters but the financial considerations reversed this
decision; instead a leased central location in Des Moines houses the
executive staff and the capital news bureau.
• All the 50 IPR employees are still employed by their individual
universities.
III. Communications
A. External
• Focus on quality and relevance because “everyone wants the
service to do better.”
B. Internal
• Needed to work better with and involve senior staff in
understanding the rationale for decisions.

• Since the Board commissioned the feasibility report they were pre-
disposed to support the merger.
• The Regents’ leadership were kept informed throughout the process

and the consultant met with them monthly (telephonically or in-
person) monthly during the last four months of his consultancy.
• The Regents selected members to be on the Executive Council to
represent their interests during the planning of the work, but who
were not there to just “wear their own colors.”
• “In hindsight (a director says) I would have wanted more clarity from
the Regents on some of the details of the recommendations. Which
ones they liked and which they didn’t.”
V. Funding Support
• Pledges are stable and there is growth in the Des Moines
membership.
• IPR’s Fiscal Year 2008 ended with 3,300 new members. So,
membership is okay, but underwriting is bad and Major Giving not
huge because of the economy.
• Each of the three stations continues to receive a separate CPB
community service grant, although there is now some conversation
about a consolidated grant.
VI. Lessons Learned

• “Be pretty draconian in quickly tackling operational efficiencies: we
purchased common software, centralized engineering and put up a
central studio. We coordinated underwriting, communications and
our websites.” The goal was to minimize errors that might further
inflame audiences who were concerned about losing local service
• If planning to bring in outsiders to help with operations (either as
staff or consultants) they need to be great!; also need to understand
the cultures of the organizations.
• Should only keep staff if they buy in to the new direction. If not,
offer a 2-year salary and get them out.
Merger Case Study: Maine Public Broadcasting Network

Time Frame: 1991-1992
Entities Involved: Maine Public Broadcasting Network (four PTV stations and 5
public radio stations) licensed to the University of Maine and WCBB-TV licensed
to Colby-Bates-Bowdoin Educational Telecasting Corporation.
Background/Current Status
• The merger discussions began between Rob Gardiner, Pres. & GM of
WCBB and Edward Winchester, General Manager of the Maine
Network.
• The Maine merger was one of the first of its kind in public
broadcasting.
• The two licensees presented two totally different cultures in staff,
geographic coverage, audience makeup; had overlap in Portland
area.
• Shared the same programming and local productions.
• New entity originally called the Maine Public Broadcasting
Corporation with Rob Gardiner taking over the helm of the new
entity. Gardiner had been the GM of WCBB for two years and had
been in state government before that.
• New governance board included 3 university trustees, the University
of Maine’s Chancellor, the presidents of Colby, Bates and Bowdoin
colleges, and 12 public members.
• The television stations adopted the on-air name "Maine Public
Television," later becoming "Maine PBS" in 1998. The radio stations
became known as "Maine Public Radio." In 2006, the entity renamed
themselves "MPBN".
• MPBN now has offices and studio operations in Lewiston, Bangor
and Portland.
• Managers said further cooperation or merger would increase local
production and boost efficiency.
• Merger would provide better service to the State.

• Began the conversation focusing on increased cooperation and
possible consolidation.
• The two licensees were already exchanging locally produced
programs.
• Merger took a relatively short time, but it was very difficult building
culture among stations; called “cultural dissonance at its greatest.”
• Gardiner spent a great deal of time on bridging cultural differences;
held monthly day-long meetings with the managers of all the
stations.
• Focused time and money on management training, communications
infrastructure and human resources.
• New entity instituted video conferencing to bridge the physical
distance between staff.
• Did a study on the best central place for studios and opted to have
studios in multiple locations; also did co-branding study.
• Lewiston became the primary production facility-with limited
facilities in the other locations-; Bangor became the technical hub;
Portland is where the radio news operation is primarily located.
III.Communications
A. External
• The new entity immediately changed the phone system so that calls
from viewers/listeners anywhere in the state went to a central phone
system which increased the perception of a single operation.
B. Internal
• Management spent a good amount of time on messages of success
with staff…which included the attention from the system and PBS to
have MPBN discuss merger execution.
• Staffs were told that no one would lose their jobs. However, that
was not the case.

• It took a while to build collegiality of the board.
• One University board member had Board oversight of the merger
and organized the first Board meeting of the merged organization.
V. Funding Support
• Received some help from APTS (Public Television’s lobbying group)
• No additional funding support from CPB, but did keep individual CPB
station grants.
VI. Lessons Learned

• Although it is difficult, a merger should begin at zero: “that’s what
you should do every time.”
• Work with the staff was difficult, and it took a long time to build trust
“but we just kept doing the right thing over and over. “
• Took 6-7 years to get to the point where there was enough turnover
and trust built to overcome the antipathy.
Additional Merger Case Summaries
Bay Area TV Merger

Entities: KQED TV/FM-San Francisco and KTEH TV-San Jose
In 2006, General Managers Jeff Clarke and Tom Fanella decided it was time to merge
after several years of cordial conversation on the subject. Their two PTV stations were
just 30 miles apart in this overlap market and KTEH was the second tier PBS
programming station. The final agreement led to a new, non-profit called Northern
California Public Broadcasting (NCPB) which combined the licenses but retained the
identities and facilities of the two stations. Clarke, headed the new non-profit and Fanella
remained the president of KTEH.
The GMs and a small group of board members vetted the idea for several months and the
merger was approved by the unanimous votes of both boards. The new board for NCPB
was made up of 20+ members from KED and 3 members from KTEH; the KQED Board
Chair became the chair for the new organization. The organization added a third station
in Monterey.
Communications from the Board and leadership focused on “ improved and

diversified programming” and strengthened position to sell regional underwriting.
The key to the success of this merger was the good relationship between the general
managers and the obvious programming benefits to Bay Area viewers in the overlap
market.
Note: NCPB announced a restructuring in February 2009 that closed the KTEH studio,
reduced staff by 30 including 10 KTEH staffers. The reasons given were reductions in
corporate and foundation support.
Portland Oregon Program Consolidation

Entities: OPB-KMHD-FM
This 2009 merger is between Portland’s major joint licensee and a highly-respected, jazz-
format public radio station in the market. The agreement transfers the operations of
KMHD from Mount Hood Community College (MHCC) to OPB in July 2009. The
college retains the license and KMHD will keep its call letters and format. The station’s
studios will move to OPB in Portland. KMHD has an annual operation budget of
$775,000; and has 100-125,000 listeners/week. Due to cuts in state funding the public
radio station projected a $224,000 budget deficit.
The deal was initiated by OPB President, Steve Bass and approved by the MHCC District
Board of Education in May 2009. KMHD’s 5 full-time staff will remain employees of
the College. OPB has agreed to offer internships for students in television and radio
production, multimedia, and journalism. The school will receive on-air credit on OPB
television and radio and have the potential to reach OPB’s 1.5 million audience.
Communications around this merger focuses on the benefit of OPB’s reach to enrich
the jazz audience in Portland; the benefit of Mount Hood Community College
students for learning opportunities through OPB’s productions; and increased
visibility for the College.
The keys to success in this merger were KMHD’s need to address a looming deficit
and OPB’s expertise in outlining the benefits of the merger to the college station’s
Board.
Executive Summary
Alaska G3 Financial Models
The purpose of this report is to explain the first phase of the financial analysis contemplating the financial
viability of a partnership among Alaska Public Telecommunications (APTI) in Anchorage; KTOO TV/Radio in
Juneau; and KUAC TV/Radio in Fairbanks. Currently, these three entities air a news and music format with
different combinations of music and news programming on their radio stations and, primarily, PBS
programming on the TV.
In this first phase, the goal was to depict the outcome of a current service model for each entity without any
partnership. These models illustrate the status quo scenarios where each entity operates without any significant
adjustment on its format, organizational structure or any other functions. The separate models were then
combined to see the overall aggregated results.
Although each of these current service models differed slightly in their outcomes, the key assumptions in
projecting the future outlook were the same:
• Over the past several years public radio and TV operating revenues have stagnated primarily by due to
a plateau in listener/viewer sensitive income. These trends have been exacerbated by the current
economic downturn. It is projected that the revenue growth will be very modest within the foreseeable
future.
o The three entities’ combined membership numbers declined by 1.27%/year between FY2005
and FY2009 (FY09-preliminary results). It is projected that these revenues will grow at a
modest 1.52%/year from FY2009 through FY2019. The growth in membership comes not from
any significant expansion of the listener or member base, but from a slight increase in the
average contribution amount to reflect the inflationary trends.
o The three entities’ combined underwriting numbers increased by 0.96%/year between FY2005
and FY2009 (FY09-preliminary results). It is projected that these revenues will grow at
~4.29%/year from FY2009 through FY2019. The growth in combined underwriting comes
primarily from the additional income from APTI’s Alaska Public Radio Network (a network
that provides news programming to all Alaska stations) and the assumption that KUAC’s
ongoing initiative will help increase its underwriting income.
o Other income sources that encompass grants, direct/indirect support from licensees, special
events, etc. increased by 2.31%/year between FY2005 and FY2009 (FY09-preliminary results).
These revenue streams are expected to grow at a lower 1.93%/year from FY2009 through
FY2019. This conservative outlook stems from the anticipation that the licensee support, which
makes up a significant portion of these revenues, will either decline or remain fixed for the two
institutional licenses (KTOO and KUAC).
• Unlike the revenues, the operating expenses have continued to grow. It is projected that the expense
growth will be consistent and surpasses the growth in revenues. The three entities’ aggregated operating
expenses increased by 0.75%/year between FY2005 and FY2009 (FY09-preliminary results). Part of
Confidential 1 7/21/2009
this slow growth was a result of the recent cost cutting measures undertaken by the stations to
compensate for the downturn in revenues. It is projected that these expenses will grow by 2.73%/year
from FY2009 through FY2019, in parallel with inflation expectations.
o Programming and administrative costs comprise a significant portion of the operating expenses.
It is estimated that these two expense sources will continue to grow as the personnel costs are
adjusted for cost of living and as the content providers ramp up their fees to reflect inflationary
trends.
• As the growth in operating expenses surpasses that of operating revenues, the net operating position is
expected to deteriorate, creating deficits over the long-run. In FY2008/09, the three entities’ aggregated
surplus from their operations was approximately $280,000. If the individual revenue and expense
projections hold true, the three entities are expected to generate a deficit of approximately $630,000 in
Year 10 (FY2018/2019).
• In line with the recent trends in the public broadcasting sector, the TV revenues are expected to fall
behind the radio revenues.
o From FY2009 through FY2019, the models project a 2.10%/year growth in radio membership
and 0.82%/year growth in TV membership income for the combined operations. Between
FY2005 and FY2009, these revenues increased by 6.50%/year for radio and decreased by
20.59%/year (decrease came primarily from the steep revenue decline anticipated for KTOO-
TV) for TV.
o From FY2009 through FY2019, the models project ~ 4.50%/year growth in radio underwriting
(includes APRN) and a 3.62%/year growth in TV underwriting income (includes 360 North) for
the combined operations. Between FY2005 and FY2009, these revenues increased by
3.27%/year for radio and decreased by 6.29%/year for TV.
• Government funding and other grants are projected to be relatively stable, a factor that might
compensate for some of the decline in other revenue items. The income from sources that are not
listener/viewer sensitive increased by 2.31%/year between FY2005 and FY2009. These revenues are
expected to grow at a much slower 1.93%/year over the next ten years.
All three models applied the same methodology:
1) Analysis of the station's historical performance
2) Analysis of the coverage area
3) Analysis of the market
4) Analysis of the comparable stations
5) Analysis of the historical trends in the industry
6) Based on the historical performance, coverage area, market specific factors and the comparable
group analysis, the model tabulates revenue and expense projections
This analysis should be viewed as a starting point in building a partnership model that in the next phase of
analysis would take into account the following factors:
• Economies of scale utilized by the partnership
• Cost reductions through a decrease in duplicate programming, administrative, technical, fundraising
and/or other functions
• Other efficiencies that are difficult to achieve as stand-alone operations
• Potential impact on state funding and resources currently provided to KUAC
The following chart illustrates the aggregated revenues and expenses projected for each entity under the current
service model. This analysis indicates that all three entities suffer from a deteriorating fiscal position if they do
not implement any major change in their operating model. The second phase of our analysis will look
specifically at the partnership options and determine if such partnerships can create synergies that can in turn
change this financial picture.
Financial Projections for APT, KUAC and KTOO Operations (No Partnership)
-Detail-
Projections FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19
OPERATING REVENUES Average
Year membership
1 income
Year 2 for allYear
Public3Radio TVYear
Stations
4 aroundYear
the 5
US is Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Memberships 2,556,174 2,206,883 2,271,616 2,465,299 2,428,406 2,488,054 2,521,078 2,554,803 2,589,250 2,626,263 2,664,090 2,702,759 2,742,295 2,782,726 2,824,077
APT 1,644,767 1,413,074 1,420,453 1,518,362 1,496,731 1,505,819 1,514,891 1,523,944 1,532,977 1,543,806 1,554,658 1,565,532 1,576,425 1,587,337 1,598,266
KUAC 569,550 474,494 512,200 626,351 631,390 677,000 687,147 697,446 707,899 718,509 729,278 740,209 751,303 762,563 773,993
KTOO 341,857 319,315 338,963 320,586 300,285 305,235 319,041 333,413 348,375 363,947 380,154 397,019 414,568 432,825 451,818
Average underwriting income for all Public Radio TV Stations around the US is ~$2M.
Underwriting revenues 1,829,203 1,906,262 1,788,513 1,786,475 1,900,541 2,042,571 2,139,652 2,222,322 2,308,020 2,396,856 2,488,941 2,584,393 2,683,332 2,785,884 2,892,178
APT 1,137,023 1,218,432 1,131,630 1,058,099 1,103,968 1,144,571 1,186,616 1,230,154 1,275,236 1,321,916 1,370,249 1,420,292 1,472,105 1,525,748 1,581,285
KUAC 346,323 353,697 306,961 349,392 335,350 435,000 456,387 476,745 497,844 519,710 542,371 565,856 590,196 615,422 641,567
KTOO 345,857 334,133 349,922 378,984 461,222 463,000 496,648 515,422 534,940 555,230 576,321 598,244 621,031 644,713 669,326
Other Revenues - APT 2,427,339 2,154,484 2,282,447 2,729,296 2,372,247 2,494,199 2,398,345 2,418,475 2,439,000 2,459,934 2,481,292 2,503,578 2,526,328 2,549,559 2,573,285
Other Revenues -
1 2,844,252 2,522,013 3,000,733 3,213,916 3,956,814 4,131,395 4,210,463 4,324,501 4,409,061 4,535,200 4,665,329 4,799,577 4,938,078 5,080,969 5,228,395
KUAC
Other Revenues - KTOO 2,382,774 2,125,627 2,473,460 2,283,936 2,056,940 2,015,579 2,038,355 2,024,151 2,052,830 2,096,859 2,145,150 2,194,731 2,245,646 2,297,937 2,351,651
Average total operating revenues for all Public Radio TV Stations around the US is ~$11.7M.
Total Operating Revenues $ 12,039,742 $ 10,915,269 $ 11,816,769 $ 12,478,922 $ 12,714,947 $ 13,171,798 $ 13,307,894 $ 13,544,252 $ 13,798,161 $ 14,115,112 $ 14,444,803 $ 14,785,038 $ 15,135,679 $ 15,497,074 $ 15,869,587
APT 5,209,129 4,785,990 4,834,530 5,305,757 4,972,946 5,144,590 5,099,852 5,172,573 5,247,213 5,325,657 5,406,199 5,489,402 5,574,858 5,662,644 5,752,837
1
KUAC 3,760,125 3,350,204 3,819,894 4,189,659 4,923,554 5,243,395 5,353,997 5,498,693 5,614,804 5,773,419 5,936,978 6,105,642 6,279,577 6,458,955 6,643,954
KTOO 3,070,488 2,779,075 3,162,345 2,983,506 2,818,448 2,783,814 2,854,044 2,872,986 2,936,145 3,016,036 3,101,625 3,189,995 3,281,244 3,375,475 3,472,796
OPERATING EXPENSES
APT Operating Expenses 5,370,874 5,151,275 4,649,400 4,525,323 4,681,700 4,810,306 4,942,755 5,079,162 5,219,647 5,364,791 5,514,276 5,668,234 5,826,802 5,990,119 6,158,329
KUAC Operating Expense 3,811,423 4,090,536 4,226,442 4,644,506 4,914,148 5,223,236 5,334,423 5,493,987 5,658,369 5,827,717 6,002,182 6,181,920 6,367,091 6,557,862 6,754,403
KTOO Operating Expense 2,929,064 2,700,121 3,109,167 3,028,697 2,881,147 2,747,939 2,820,988 2,906,998 2,995,631 3,086,966 3,181,086 3,278,076 3,378,024 3,481,021 3,587,160
Total Operating Expenses $ 12,111,361 $ 11,941,932 $ 11,985,009 $ 12,198,526 $ 12,476,994 $ 12,781,482 $ 13,098,166 $ 13,480,147 $ 13,873,648 $ 14,279,474 $ 14,697,543 $ 15,128,230 $ 15,571,917 $ 16,029,002 $ 16,499,892
Average Public TV station had an operating loss of $167,050 in FY2008.
Net Surplus/(Deficit) from
$ (71,619) $ (1,026,663) $ (168,240) $ 280,396 $ 237,953 $ 390,316 $ 209,728 $ 64,105 $ (75,487) $ (164,362) $ (252,741) $ (343,191) $ (436,238) $ (531,928) $ (630,305)
Operations
APT (161,745) (365,285) 185,130 780,434 291,246 334,283 157,098 93,411 27,565 (39,134) (108,076) (178,832) (251,944) (327,475) (405,492)
KUAC (51,298) (740,332) (406,548) (454,847) 9,405 20,158 19,574 4,706 (43,566) (54,298) (65,204) (76,278) (87,514) (98,907) (110,449)
KTOO 141,424 78,954 53,178 (45,191) (62,699) 35,875 33,056 (34,012) (59,486) (70,930) (79,460) (88,081) (96,780) (105,546) (114,365)
Breakdown of Revenue by Entity by Radio, TV, APRN and 360 North (no Partnership)
Membership - Aggregated 2,556,174 2,206,883 2,271,616 2,465,299 2,428,406 2,488,054 2,521,078 2,554,803 2,589,250 2,626,263 2,664,090 2,702,759 2,742,295 2,782,726 2,824,077 Allocation
Radio 1,297,668 1,318,520 1,346,270 1,374,777 1,404,065 1,434,159 1,465,086 1,496,871 1,529,543 1,563,130 1,597,662 56.6%
TV 1,130,738 1,169,534 1,174,808 1,180,026 1,185,186 1,192,103 1,199,005 1,205,888 1,212,753 1,219,596 1,226,416 43.4%
APT 1,644,767 1,413,074 1,420,453 1,518,362 1,496,731 1,505,819 1,514,891 1,523,944 1,532,977 1,543,806 1,554,658 1,565,532 1,576,425 1,587,337 1,598,266
Radio - - - - 728,811 738,285 747,883 757,605 767,454 777,431 787,538 797,776 808,147 818,653 829,295 51.9%
TV - - - - 767,920 767,534 767,008 766,339 765,522 766,375 767,121 767,756 768,278 768,684 768,971 48.1%
KUAC 569,550 474,494 512,200 626,351 631,390 677,000 687,147 697,446 707,899 718,509 729,278 740,209 751,303 762,563 773,993
Radio 237,983 222,270 181,142 252,254 283,572 290,000 294,347 298,758 303,236 307,781 312,394 317,076 321,828 326,652 331,548 42.8%
TV 331,567 252,224 331,058 374,097 347,818 387,000 392,800 398,688 404,663 410,728 416,884 423,133 429,474 435,911 442,445 57.2%
KTOO 341,857 319,315 338,963 320,586 300,285 305,235 319,041 333,413 348,375 363,947 380,154 397,019 414,568 432,825 451,818
Radio 205,721 213,869 231,470 262,609 285,285 290,235 304,041 318,413 333,375 348,947 365,154 382,019 399,568 417,825 436,818 96.7%
TV 136,136 105,446 107,493 57,977 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 3.3%
Underwriting revenues -
1,829,203 1,906,262 1,788,513 1,786,475 1,900,541 2,042,571 2,139,652 2,222,322 2,308,020 2,396,856 2,488,941 2,584,393 2,683,332 2,785,884 2,892,178
Aggregated
Radio 372,599 903,482 856,974 1,011,190 1,049,714 1,152,572 1,215,956 1,267,652 1,321,236 1,376,775 1,434,335 1,493,986 1,555,800 1,619,851 1,686,217 58.3%
APRN - 470,126 453,636 357,171 375,805 388,851 402,343 416,293 430,719 445,636 461,060 477,008 493,498 510,548 528,177 18.3%
TV 151,975 123,969 143,259 83,039 317,774 346,147 360,945 376,364 392,432 409,176 426,625 444,808 463,757 483,505 504,084 17.4%
360 North 167,606 157,473 134,706 137,051 157,248 155,000 160,409 162,013 163,633 165,269 166,922 168,591 170,277 171,980 173,700 6.0%
APT 1,137,023 1,218,432 1,131,630 1,058,099 1,103,968 1,144,571 1,186,616 1,230,154 1,275,236 1,321,916 1,370,249 1,420,292 1,472,105 1,525,748 1,581,285
Radio - 497,094 478,056 502,904 505,740 524,572 544,079 564,284 585,212 606,888 629,337 652,588 676,666 701,603 727,426 46.0%
APRN - 470,126 453,636 357,171 375,805 388,851 402,343 416,293 430,719 445,636 461,060 477,008 493,498 510,548 528,177 33.4%
TV - - - - 222,424 231,147 240,195 249,576 259,305 269,393 279,852 290,697 301,941 313,597 325,681 20.6%
KUAC 346,323 353,697 306,961 349,392 335,350 435,000 456,387 476,745 497,844 519,710 542,371 565,856 590,196 615,422 641,567
Radio 194,348 229,728 163,702 266,353 240,000 320,000 335,637 349,958 364,717 379,926 395,598 411,745 428,380 445,515 463,164 72.2%
TV 151,975 123,969 143,259 83,039 95,350 115,000 120,750 126,788 133,127 139,783 146,772 154,111 161,817 169,907 178,403 27.8%
KTOO 345,857 334,133 349,922 378,984 461,222 463,000 496,648 515,422 534,940 555,230 576,321 598,244 621,031 644,713 669,326
Radio 178,251 176,660 215,216 241,933 303,974 308,000 336,240 353,410 371,307 389,961 409,399 429,653 450,754 472,734 495,627 74.0%
360 North 167,606 157,473 134,706 137,051 157,248 155,000 160,409 162,013 163,633 165,269 166,922 168,591 170,277 171,980 173,700 26.0%
Livingston Associates Interim Report
Appendix F
INTERIM
REPORT
G3 PROJECT EVALUATION
PROJECT UPDATE AND OVERVIEW
STAFF CONSULTATION
Tom Livingston
May 18, 2009
“A merger is not an event” APTI staff member
“Over the top communication – heavy-handed style doesn’t work” KUAC Leadership
Council Member
In March, 2009, Livingston Associates was retained by the “G3” group (Public Media
organizations KTOO, Juneau, APTI, Anchorage, and KUAC, Fairbanks) to serve as lead
consultant in the evaluation phase of the project outlined in “White Paper: Group of 3
Alaska Public Broadcasters: Considering Combination”, dated December, 2008, jointly
written and issued by the General Managers of the stations (Bill Legere, KTOO; Steve
Lindbeck, APTI; and Greg Petrowich, KUAC). This document is an interim report of key
milestones and findings in preparation of the meeting on May, 20, 2009 of the
representative governance group of the three organizations, to plan the second half of the
evaluation phase.
Key Steps/Milestones
December, 2008: GM’s of KUAC, KTOO and APTI issue the document “White Paper:
Group of 3 Alaska Public Broadcasters: Considering Combination” An overview of why
the GM’s and boards felt now is the right time to explore collaboration/merger options, as
well as significant issues to be explored in what was envisioned as a three-phase process
(Evaluation, Design and Implementation).
January–March, 2009: Representative governance group selected from each of the

stations to coordinate the process, and potential consultants interviewed. During this
period KUAC General Manager Greg Petrowich announces he is departing for another
position, and Jake Poole is named Interim GM.
March 13, 2009: Tentative lead consultant Tom Livingston is engaged to facilitate
meeting of the Governance group. The outcome of the facilitation was development of
key Values/Success measures for the effort, and naming of Livingston as lead consultant.
June 10, 2009: University Regents meet
June 15, 2009: Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission Meeting – consider question of
providing briefing on process
Design Elements and Status
• Governance/Community Leader Interviews: Dennis McMillian and the

Foraker Group were retained to interview the organizations’ boards (in the
case of KUAC, key leadership of the University of Alaska), as well as key
stakeholders/community leaders selected by the GM’s from each station. An
introduction and list of questions was developed in consultation between
Livingston, McMillian and the General Manager group.
Status: Completed. McMillian interviewed 66 stakeholders from the three

stations/communities. His report is attached. On May 11, Livingston was
contacted by KUAC staff passing on a request that five CAC/Leadership
Council members who did not attend the McMillian session be given the
opportunity to provide input. We forwarded the text of the discussion
guide directly to the members in question, with an invitation to submit
written responses and/or call us directly.
• Staff Interviews: Tom Livingston visited the three stations during the week
of April 27 to May 1, 2009. All staff were consulted in a combination of one
on one and group sessions. Sessions consisted of a briefing on the steps of the
evaluation process (including sharing the values/measures of success list from
the March 13 facilitation). Sessions also included an open-ended respondent-
generated discussion in which (in addition to issues/questions/concerns raised
by respondents) potential opportunities and barriers were explored as well as
any advice to the process. An added consult with the senior staff of KUAC (as
well as Jake Poole and Steve Smith) was conducted on May 14 in response to
group concerns about the KUAC consult.
Status: Completed, with potential update/revision. Interviewing process

completed, and we are developing a “Survey Monkey” survey to distribute
to the staffs of the organizations to provide an opportunity for additional
input in writing.
• Case Studies: We have selected (6) recent examples of mergers and

attempted mergers in Public Media to seek to identify common threads in
those efforts.
Status: Underway. Anticipated completion May 31, 2009.
• Financial Analysis: Public Radio Capital was retained to create projections of

each of the three stations separately as well as a projection of the three stations
combined.
Status: Underway. Our agreement with PRC states their work will be
completed by May 31, 2009, though we feel at this point it may be
challenging to accomplish that goal.
Significant Ideas/issues
“Some won’t get on board – press on.” Community Stakeholder
Evaluation Phase
Reconvene the coordinating group within next couple of weeks – brief
them on what we’ve learned – co-create decision-making model and set
schedule (set for May 20)
Suggestion of starting from scratch scenario – what if there was no public

media in Alaska and we wanted to provide it?
At the May 20th meeting we will seek consensus on developing the

decision-making process for moving from evaluation to the design phase.
If the decision is to go ahead, possible elements include:
• Create a joint venture to conduct the design phase of the merger
• Licenses will continue to be held by the parent organizations, at least

through the design phase, and indications are that creating an LMA
with a new entity that would operate the organization in behalf of the
licensees. An LMA structure may also enhance the potential to retain
three CPB base grants (currently $440,000 per year per licensee).
Finally, an LMA structure could facilitate dissolution of the
partnership at some point in the future.
Design phase process suggestions:
Design phase should include staff work groups – 4-5 large functions, e.g.
– business, membership, engineering, etc., with the groups meeting to
work on tactical/operational level – will make for better design, also serve
as team building – maybe choose a couple of areas with good potential for
success – either team makeup or low-hanging fruit (Livingston)
Other Recommendations from respondents:
Need legislative communication strategy –
might be interested in a grant to provide technical

support/training/editorial to rural stations aka APRN
Stimulus plan potential for fiber connecting rural communities (including

Bethel)
Point of information
KTOO, APTI have Allegiance – KUAC Raisers edge membership software
REPORT ON STAFF CONSULTATIONS
KTOO
“We’re not afraid to fail” KTOO staff member
“Do it, but do it right. Don’t screw it up” KTOO staff member
At KTOO I met first with the manager group (with one-on-one follow-up consults), then
in a full staff meeting. The consultation was marked by both staff and management
groups being curious and attentive about the process briefing, quickly moving past
process questions into significant brainstorming about how a potential combined
organization might be structured. The group gave candid assessments of their perception
of the strengths and weaknesses of the other two organizations as well as of KTOO itself
(though like the other two stations showed home-town team spirit). Key concerns were
localism, and a concern that any consolidation must be carefully planned and expertly
executed.
APTI
“(when mergers happen) the dumbest part survives and the good part gets lost” APTI
staff member
“People don’t feel heard” APTI Staff member
At APTI I met the staff in four small groups, ranging from four to about eight staff. Two
staff members joined a group by phone, and in one case I met one on one with a staff
member who couldn’t participate in any of the scheduled times. The groups were
consistently restive – compared to KTOO, staying significantly longer in discussing how
mergers hadn’t worked in the past and current problems facing the organization. In all but
one of the small groups, after venting they did engage with a focus-forward exploration
process. The staff narrative was quite similar to the consultation I did during the
Lindbeck search – it holds mergers as the cause of the decline of television – that each
merger – with radio first and then especially with APRN, including a lack of planning
and bad management execution – response to the idea of moving toward a merger ranged
from skeptical to cynical/hostile (consulting with staff is just window-dressing – chance a
decision has already been made) – Good deal of conversation about wanting/needing a
mission statement and org chart for the current operation. Like the KTOO group, several
staff said that quality planning and execution of any change was critical
KUAC
“Tell us in a timely way” KUAC staff member
“Who will be the decision-maker?” KUAC staff member
The KUAC consultation consisted of a combination of one-on-ones with the senior team,
a small group conversation with the Development Department staff, a larger group
meeting with the non Development Department staff, and finally dinner in a group with
the senior staff. Important timing context is that discussions were reaching a conclusion
between senior staff and University Administration on pending budget cuts including
layoffs. On the surface the staff response at the meetings appeared to be more like the
KTOO conversations than the APTI conversations, without a lot of questions or
comments about the proposed process.
The group seemed more concerned than the KTOO and APTI staffs about lack of
“broadcasters” at the top of the organization and in the merger discussion – concerned
with “representation” at the table given Jake’s lack of direct experience in their work
(wanted a staff representative in the discussions – e.g. Claudia). The group displayed a
strong sense of pride in their accomplishments, and frustration with recent developments
with the University.
After the consultation was over, staff reiterated its concern about effective representation,
and added a concern that as the consultant I (Livingston) may have been less than open
and objective about my evaluation. The feedback came from the senior staff both directly
to Jake and indirectly through a Community Advisory Council member to Steve Smith.
In response, on May 15, Jake, Steve Smith and I had a meeting with the senior staff, to
give them a second opportunity to communicate questions and concerns. They provided a
copy of their Strategic and fundraising plans and a narrative detailing their “no-pledge”
approach to television fundraising, and suggested we get org charts, strategic plans and
fundraising strategies from the other three stations.
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
For G3 Project
Vision for Alaska Public Media
1. If successful, in the future the combined operation will be viewed as more

important in the state. Our intent is to build a true statewide network while
maintaining local significance at each community we now serve. We will also
increase reach/service into rural and native communities. (the service is)
trusted – shares our mission-based core values and rich heritage of
community/public service.
2. The successful operation will have a state-wide influential board.
3. In exploring the potential of a more collaborative state-wide operation, and
should we choose to go ahead, in our design work, we will include measurable
outcomes agreed on in advance with a report card for our stakeholder groups.
4. A central aspiration is to help knit Alaska together as a state – to build on
what it is to be Alaskan.
5. Through working together, we aspire to developing a high quality, state-wide
production team, convergent across platforms, as well as build on our current
capacity and enhance a truly state-wide, multi-platform news presence.
6. In our work we imagine/intend to maintain the intensely local nature of our
radio services.

Livingston Associates G3 Final Report 072109

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Livingston Associates G3 Final Report 072109

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

G3 Vision Report

Livingston Associates, LLC.

Complete Build out Coast

APTI KTOO KUAC

License & License & License &

WFYI Indianapolis, IN 5 January

WITF Harrisburg, PA 3/4 * February

WNED Buffalo, NY 3/9 * February

KQED/KTEH San Francisco, CA 30/14 * February

WMFE Orlando, FL 15 February

WETA Washington, DC 15 February

NHPTV Manchester, NH 5/4 * March

KAET Phoenix, AZ 13 April

WPBT Miami, FL 23 April

WHYY Philadelphia, PA 17 May

WNET New York, NY 50 May

KCET Los Angeles, CA 12 June

PBS Crystal City, VA 40 June

Constituent Interviews-“G-3” Project

Questions-Format for Interview

2. Mission – The consensus as to the mission of public broadcasting was overwhelming. In

6. Urban-rural inclusion in conversations – Most of those interviewed have vast experience

Merger Case Study: Public Media Connect, Inc.

Entities Involved: Think TV and CET

II. Rules of Engagement

• The last 15 months of talks involved a 10-person group consisting of

IV. Board Management

VI. Lessons Learned

Merger Case Study: Ideastream (Cleveland)

Entities Involved: WVIZ and WCPN

II. Rules of Engagement

IV. Board Management

VI. Lessons Learned

Merger Case Study: Iowa Public Radio

Entities Involved: WOI-AM/FM at Iowa State University (Ames/Des Moines);

approach to news can be very relevant to the people of Iowa by

II. Rules of Engagement

IV. Board Management

• The Regents’ leadership were kept informed throughout the process

VI. Lessons Learned

Merger Case Study: Maine Public Broadcasting Network

II. Rules of Engagement

IV. Board Management

VI. Lessons Learned

Additional Merger Case Summaries

Bay Area TV Merger

Communications from the Board and leadership focused on “ improved and

Portland Oregon Program Consolidation

“A merger is not an event” APTI staff member

January–March, 2009: Representative governance group selected from each of the

June 10, 2009: University Regents meet

Design Elements and Status

• Governance/Community Leader Interviews: Dennis McMillian and the

Status: Completed. McMillian interviewed 66 stakeholders from the three

Status: Completed, with potential update/revision. Interviewing process

• Case Studies: We have selected (6) recent examples of mergers and

Status: Underway. Anticipated completion May 31, 2009.

• Financial Analysis: Public Radio Capital was retained to create projections of

“Some won’t get on board – press on.” Community Stakeholder

Suggestion of starting from scratch scenario – what if there was no public

At the May 20th meeting we will seek consensus on developing the

• Licenses will continue to be held by the parent organizations, at least

Design phase process suggestions: