麦肯锡公共电视运营模式（英文版）ppt课件

1、Developing a Sustainable Economic Model for Public TelevisionMay 29, 2003CONFIDENTIALPROJECT ASPIRATIONS AND KEY QUESTIONSIdentify and drive major changes that will put public television on a more sound economic footing and ensure its future successHow severe and long lasting are the financial press

2、ures on the system?How should we launch these initiatives and effect lasting change?Which performance improvement opportunities offer the most promise?CHALLENGES: BOTH STATION ECONOMIES AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ARE AT-RISK * Excludes capital funding for digital upgrade. Revenues not adjusted for infl

3、ation*Growth rate from 1994-2001Source: CPB Audited Financial Reports (AFR), PBS analysis (dues), Appendix Q from PBS SG white paper (“Funding for PBS NPS Programming by Funder Category)$1.93 Billion$450 Million2001 Local Station Economy2001 National Program FundingProspects for future revenue growt

4、h3.5 % per year*3.1 % per year*Historical growthin revenues (1990-2001)CurrentsizeDecline in real terms due to falling net member revenuesA system decision5.4 % per yearFlat to very slowly growing (1% above inflation)2001 Station Assessment$107 M273.3374.0249.4328.5230.5330.5205.6347.6128.6259.6104.

5、2145.662.994.5Total PTV system revenue,* 1990 and 2001$ MillionsUniversity In-kindCorporate and foundation givingUnrelated businessState and local funding Federal funding* Member giving*Excludes capital funding for digital upgrade, additional capital fundraising, endowment, and interest *Federal age

6、ncy grants for 2001 are estimated (assumed 5% growth over 2000)Source:AFR; federal reports; PBS annual reports$1.25 billion$1.88 billionCHALLENGES: ONLY GROWTH AREAS ARE UNRELATED BUSINESS AND UNDERWRITING1990200Annual Growth %1990-20012.5Drivers of growthCHALLENGES: HISTORICALLY,

7、 THE SYSTEM HAS GROWN THROUGH DIVERSIFICATION NOW ALL REVENUE SOURCES ARE THREATENEDSource:AFRs; Team perspectiveFuture OutlookCHALLENGES: NET STATION MEMBERSHIP REVENUE HAS DECLINED IN REAL TERMS SINCE 1990* All growth rates are compound annual growth rates.Source:AFRs; Bureau of Labor StatisticsFu

8、ndraising costs: 1.0%Net membership revenues: -0.9%$17 million lost income$ Millions, Adjusted for inflation to constant 2001 $Gross revenues: 0.1%*CHALLENGES: DECLINES WILL CONTINUE IN NET MEMBER SUPPORTPledge, which is the engine of new member acquisition, has seen rising costs relative to new mem

9、ber yield in line with declining productivity trends outside PTVNet renewal revenue will not offset declining acquisitionStations already have among the nonprofit sectors highest renewal ratesRenewal mails productivity is flat to decliningDeclining ratings increase stations challengeFalling ratings

10、likely contribute to the long term membership decline, both because the prospect pool with a connection to PTV shrinks and because membership renewal is highly correlated with audienceWith the number of nonprofits growing twice as fast as real household charitable giving, stations will be hard press

11、ed to grow their share of members wallets Source:“Donor Centrics Comparison Report for Public Television, December 2000; DMA Factbook 2001; Giving USA 2002Audience SizeNew MemberRenewing MemberPhilanthropic EnvironmentMembership Revenue DriversOutlookCHALLENGES: STATION HAVE MET THESE CHALLENGES IN

12、THE PAST BY CONTROLLING COSTS ACROSS THE BOARD1990UnderwritingProgram informationFundraisingManagement and generalBroadcasting Programming and production100% =$1.80 billion3.14.03.8 * Expenses do not include CPB or PBS overhead or CPB provided nonstation grantsSource:AFR; PBS annual report,

13、 2001 Annual Growth Rate1990-2001Stations expense, 1990 and 2001Percent100% =$1.19 billion2001NPS dues and services4.0Nearly 1/3 of station programming and production costs are concentrated in producing stations for national programming2001 Actual2021 IllustrativeBroadcast ops MembershipEduc. / outr

14、eachOtherCHALLENGES: REVENUE DECREASES WILL PROMPT REPEATED PAINFUL COST REDUCTIONSSource:SABS; interviewsStation cost-cutting scenario:15% revenue lossAcquisition & schedulingProg. productionGeneral & administrative$10.7 millionUnderwriting Website 76 Reduce headcount by 26%, from 80 to 59Cut local

15、 production budget by 40%, reducing annual locally produced hours from 109 to 65Eliminate the Program GuideMaintain or slightly decrease investment in website and education76 $9.1 millionIllustrative expense budget for an average medium/large community station100%=CHALLENGES: CAPITAL INVESTMENTS MAY

16、 FURTHER REDUCE AVAILABLE FUNDINGOnly $800 million of the estimated $1.7 billion goal has been raisedDigital ConversionPlans are to replace current infrastructure by 2006 using CPBs $177 million appropriation requestSource:CPB; APTS Digital Clearinghouse; PBS estimatesNext Generation InterconnectDig

17、ital MediaNew ServicesPlanned capital investmentsPotential strategic investmentsBringing the best of public television into a digital media world through the use of digital cable, VOD, PVRs and High Definition programmingInnovating and launching new services such as distance learning or new media se

18、rvices that may not generate income, at least in the near termCHALLENGES: NATIONAL PROGRAMMING, LIKEWISE, FACES UNPRECENTED PRESSURESUnprecedented changes in audience demographics and viewing environmentIncreasing investment in programming and promotion from cable competitorsExternal PressuresIntern

19、al PressuresLittle or no growth in traditional sources of revenueRising costs and new costs (such as HD production)ResponsesIntroducing new/limited series and specials to slow ratings declineIncreasing funding from CPB and PBS to cover rising per hour costsGreater reliance on fully-funded programsPe

20、riodic cost reductionNationalProgrammingCHALLENGES: NO RELIEF FROM TRADITIONAL PROGRAMMING FUNDING SOURCES*Includes government agencies such as NSF and NEH, but not CPB appropriationSource:PBS SGs Environmental Scan of the PBS Sponsorship Sales Model August 2002; 2002 figures are estimates as of 12/

21、12/02Growth in total programming investment - NPS / Plus / SIP / Select (1991-2001)$ MillionsCorporate, Foundation, private producer, other*Station, PBS, and CPB1991-2001 Growth Rate7.1%5.4%2.6%266301338267291327370311326379450Prospects for future funding growthSource 1991-2001Growth RatePercent Fut

22、ure outlook PBS / stations 4 -Station financial challenges make itimpossible to increase assessmentsabsent very compelling case Corporate underwriters5 Ability to join in recovery of TV ad market threatened by turnover of keyunderwriters and commercial competitionCPB 3 Federal deficits, fiscal envir

23、onment threaten requested increases Foundations 9 Slower growth likely as foundations stabilize giving levels after rapid increases in the late 1990s andshrinking endowments since 2000 Independent producers 8 Continued growth uncertain Government agencies 9 Threatened by government deficits Other 10

24、 Too small to make a difference 432CHALLENGES: INCREASINGLY, NATIONAL PROGRAMMING DOLLARS HAVE LESS LEVERAGE RELATIVE TO COMPETITIONGrowth Rate19.9% Programming investment of 4comparable cable netsAnnual programming investment, 1993-2001$ MillionsSource:Kagans Economics of Basic Cable Networks 2002;

25、 TV Program Investor; PBSNPS original broadcast and re-up spendingGrowth Rate4.7%Average investment$41M/yearPTVinvestment$334M/ yearPTV investment$450M/yearAverage = $183M/year8:12.5:1CHALLENGES: INDEPENDENT COMMERCIAL BROADCAST STATIONS FACE SIMILAR PRESSURE AND ARE RESPONDING WITH SIMILAR SOLUTION

26、S INCREASE SCALE AND IMPROVE PRACTICESPressure on local news the cash cow from:Audience fragmentationGreater competitionRatings for syndicated programming down while costs are upDecreases/elimination of network compensationDifficult ad marketDTV mandatesThreat from more O&OsIndustry PressuresAcquisi

27、tion/consolidation to achieve scaleProgram acquisitionTechnology investment (e.g. traffic operations, sales systems, graphics)Shared services (e.g. accounting, HR)Upgrade of sales practices and systems (e.g. pricing)Industry ResponsesOPTIONS: WE BEGAN THE PROCESS BY DEFINING A SET OF CRITERIACriteri

28、on 1: Likely, large, and near-term: represents $10M net per year within 5 years, based on clear business case from compelling internal examples or relevant external benchmarksCriterion 2: Under PTV control: Achieving the opportunity did not rely solely on a “happy accident outside of the systems con

29、trolCriterion 3: No major strategic issues: pursuing this would not require major consultation to reassess/reaffirm the strategy, mission, positioning of PTVOPTIONS: A BROAD RANGE OF IDEAS WERE COLLECTED THAT WE BELIEVED MIGHT MEET THE CRITERIA Traditional Revenue SourcesA. MembershipRetentionMajor

30、GiftsCosts of MembershipB. UnderwritingNational SalesUnwired Network SalesLocalC. FoundationsD. Local PartnershipsE. Federal DollarsDept. of Education, NEASpectrum AuctionTax on InternetAncillary SourcesA. Other PlatformsCableVODTivoOnlineB. Rights Mgt.Video/DVDLicensingDomestic SyndicationInternati

31、onal Sales Digital TelevisionA. New ServicesDistance EducationDatacastingHomeland SecurityISPWorkforce TrainingGovernment ServicesNonprofit ServicesMember SubscriptionsTV MulticastB. Federal SupportB. CollaborationMaster ControlCommercial PartnersMembership/Underwriting Sales C. TechnologyInterconne

32、ctionAsset Management Master Control A. Third Party FundsNational Programming FundCo-ProductionB. Change Programming MixC. Individual ProgramsLower Per-Hour CostIncrease RepeatsSystem EfficienciesProgrammingA. Improve Lower Performing StationsOPTIONS: WE ANALYZED THE IDEAS AGAINST EACH CRITERION Cri

33、terion 3 - No major strategic issues Criterion 2: Under PTV controlCriterion 1: Likely, large, near term:Major giftsMember retentionMembership costNational underwritingLocal underwritingFoundation fundraisingCable ChannelDomestic windowingVOD/TIVONew digital servicesIncreased federal support for DTV

34、Rights managementSystem efficienciesNeed a strategic plan to pursueCable ChannelDomestic windowingPrepare for but avoid over- investmentVOD/TIVOIncreased federal support for DTVGood ideas but insufficient to secure financial healthNew digital servicesMember retentionMembership costLocal underwriting

35、Major giftsMember retentionMembership costNational underwritingLocal underwritingFoundation fundraisingVOD/TIVONew digital servicesIncreased federal support for DTVRights managementSystem efficienciesMajor giftsMember retentionMembership costNational underwritingLocal underwritingFoundation fundrais

36、ingNew digital servicesRights managementSystem efficienciesMajor giftsNational underwritingFoundation fundraisingRights managementSystem efficienciesOPTIONS: THREE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS PASSED EACH SCREEN Expand major and planned giving effortsPursue cost savings through station and system efficiencie

37、sImprove model for National Programming*Based on case study stations, including KUED, OPTV, KNPB, and WGBH Source:Station interviews; McKinsey Nonprofit PracticeGiving pyramid for typical station before launching major gift effort*Giving pyramid for typical station after launching major giving effor

38、tMajor giving revenue6%94%13%87%SOLUTIONS: MAJOR GIVING HAS A POTENTIAL IMPACT $20-$35 MILLION NET REVENUEIf all stations could see comparable improvements, system could raise $20-35 million net revenueSOLUTIONS: CASE STUDIES OFFER USEFUL ROLE MODELS FOR STATIONS LAUNCHING HIGH TOUCH DEVELOPMENT EFF

39、ORTSSource: Station data (KLRU, KNPB, Oregon PTV, and KUED)Cost per dollar raisedPercent4.76.02.0-17.2.9KNPBs major giving effort was successful because they aggressively targeted high net worth individuals for large gifts$ ThousandsKLRUs major giving effort grew 3 times as fast as their re

40、gular membership efforts$ Thousands Oregon has been successful because they expanded a full range of high touch development efforts, including major giving, planned giving, and an endowment fund$ Thousands7590113Number of major donors27477110625.6Midlevel givingMajor givingPlanned givingEndowment348

41、082122112Number of major donors76385N/A9512733.6*1,701787460615697Cost per donor$0814575N/A960632-10.4*KUEDs long-term investment in major giving has led to a ten-fold increase in this revenue$ ThousandsGrowth Rate25.5*1,4202,1743,0543,7904,5197,8538,495Growth Rate28.9Growth Rate14.0SOLUTIONS: SUCCE

42、SS REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT ACTION * Defined as stations with no or limited major giving efforts or reporting, less than 6% of total member revenues from major gifts) * Defined as stations where major giving revenues account for 6-13% of total member revenue *Defined as stations where major giving reven

43、ues account for +14% of total member revenueSource: SABSStations segmented by major gift effortsTotal=176$374MNumber of stationsTotal member revenueStrong major gift effort*Limited major gift effort*Some major gift effort*Establish full range of high touch development efforts (i.e., major giving, pl

44、anned giving, endowment development)OpportunityPotential$10-20M net revenueRaise current efforts up to best practice (e.g., improve existing major giving, expand menu of high touch development offerings)$8-15M net revenueContinue efforts to achieve full potential Total unknown$20-35M+SOLUTIONS: MEMB

45、ERSHIP STAFF OUTNUMBERS MAJOR GIVING STAFF OVER 6:1Source: SABSServe over 1.5 million members and over $120 million in revenueServe 8500 major givers and over $40 million in revenueSOLUTIONS: KEY ELEMENTS OF OUR PLAN WILL INCLUDE DEVELOPING CAPACITY AT STATIONS WITH GMs AND BOARDS, AS WELL AS WITHIN

46、 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS Benchmarks to Focus Our EffortsID major giving cohortsSet key station benchmarksTrack improvementCommunication Campaign to Ensure Buy-inClear understanding of our pastIdentify change agents and early adoptersIdentify station success factorsToolkits to Support ImplementationD

47、esign and implement new programs for GMs and Board MembersCreate an inventory of “what we knowCreate copy points, job descriptions, etc.Creation of a National Environment for SuccessPeer-to-peer GM networksLaunch national campaignAddtl financial incentivesIdentify economies of scale in membership to

48、 free up resourcesMcKinsey StudySOLUTIONS: SYSTEMWIDE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR $40 - $200 MILLIONCentralized Master ControlRegionalNationalConsolidated transmission facilitiesFully automated traffic management & schedulingCentralized IngestProducing centersInterconnection POPCo

49、nsolidated archivingCentralized/national purchasingConsolidated IT/Telcom functionalityAdministrative/Back office consolidation= Opportunity Cost Savings $Booz Allen StudyAccenture StudySOLUTIONS: BROADCAST OPERATIONS WORK FLOWS PROJECTDECISIONIMPLEMENTATIONANALYSIS & PLANDEVELOPMENTCOMMUNICATIONSLA

50、UNCHTech Conf presentationCPB round tablesTDC ReviewStation memosExpand working teamCommunicate value to stations2-3 common cause projectsTrack booked cost savings12-18 monthsReview projects quarterlyFull PTV implementation?CPB SABs dataPrevious studiesReview past OE projectsMcKinsey assumptions & a

51、nalysisDevelop implementation planSG sells additional sponsorshipInventorySOLUTIONS: NATIONAL PROGRAMMINGS OBJECTIVE IDENTIFY IMPROVEMENTS IN VALUE CHAIN (NEW PROCESSES, DIFFERENT ROLES)ResearchCommissioning/rights acquisition/ fundingSponsorship sales/ intl post salesPromotion/ station outreachBack end rights exploitationSet priorities/ agendaCommission projects/ analyze resultsSynthesize all findingsShare/ distribute findingsSet st