APM | MPR | SCPR Engagement Team

(photo: Trent Gilliss) Chris explains his ideas about...

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:58:19 -0400

(photo: Trent Gilliss)

Chris explains his ideas about competitive analysis while Wade and Jana listen on. On the wall behind them is each member’s suggested activity and outstanding question he/she would like answered. The pink tabs represent a vote by other members of the team on what they consider a more important question; the yellow tabs a vote for suggested activities we pursue as an organization.

The Mobile Web

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:47:00 -0400

Trent Gilliss

There is a concensus that in the coming five years a dramatically larger number of people will be using their mobile devices to access our content. Is the question: Will these same people be interacting with us through these devices?

Chris wants to better understand what this platform looks like and how these devices are used.

Whether or not it’s one of our activities to explore, I’m sure it will be one we’ll continue discussing. Personally, I can’t wait; the brass ring is there to be grabbed.

Becoming anthropologists

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:41:00 -0400

Julia Schrenkler

Team Leader Mike Reszler challenged us to become anthropologists in order to understand who our audience will be in 3-5 years.

Julia Schrenkler I’m thinking about how we’re...

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:29:00 -0400

Julia Schrenkler

I’m thinking about how we’re wrestling over the audit / assessment / inventory. Out of curiosity I’d like to present the MPR.org page. Can we spot the online opportunities above the fold?

Reversioning the visioning

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:24:07 -0400

Julia Schrenkler: Here's a break down of our wordsmithing. Are these things different?
Old terminology: Complete an assessment / audit
New terminology: Provide an inventory of our current online interactive activities
Old terminology: Competitive analysis
New terminology: Identify external case studies

(photo: Trent Gilliss) Our fearless team leader exercises his...

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:17:00 -0400

(photo: Trent Gilliss)

Our fearless team leader exercises his skills in corraling, synthesizing, and focusing us on coming up with some strategic activities. After all, he has to make sense of it all and report back to the larger group. *big smile*

And Alex has her own methods of centering — with a can of soda and a Sharpie.

"I want to be able to let our younger audience members txt us."

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:14:59 -0400

“I want to be able to let our younger audience members txt us.”

- Julia Schrenkler, capturing a quote from MPR News Director Chris Worthington

"Who are our competitors?"

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:09:00 -0400

“Who are our competitors?”

- Trent Gilliss

Chris asks and Jana responds. We’re engaged in the tough question about who we measure ourselves against. Is any entity off-limits? Ooh la la. My read is that it’s daunting with varying levels of execution. Do we need to have some quantitive data and/or to what extent do we follow our gut?

UPDATE: Do we combine the assessment/audit and the competitive analysis?

The value of an assessment

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:05:00 -0400

Julia Schrenkler

Wrestling the question…

What value would a full interactive audit bring to APM | MPR?

AMP Director Sheila Kim challenged us to turn our ideas completely around and to explore the dreams we want to pursue.

MPR News Director Chris Worthington wonders is there any downside of any portion of us pursuing it?

I’ll hang up and listen.

Sidebar: Should We Even Be Involved in Social Networking?

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:52:56 -0400

Trent Gilliss

After discussing potential projects of engagement and questions we’d like to put to the senior management group, Brendan, Wade, Julia, and I debated where the organization is at — where we’re at — when it comes to being involved in social networking.

Some are asking whether it’s valuable to revolve, to engage in those spheres. I’ve already made the assumption that we need to be there. The question to me is a foregone conclusion. Perhaps I need to reevaluate my position, or perhaps we need to accept the premise that we need to be there but ask the question of how are we participating and to what level of engagement are we interacting with our audiences.

Sidebar instead of ice cream bar

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:52:00 -0400

Julia Schrenkler

During the break some folks nabbed an ice cream bar others of us had a discussion where we compared our understanding of one comment:

“Should we be involved in online social engagement?”

Quick poll on whatyouthinkthismeans:

[] Of course.

[] No, aim for media extinction! (competitor special!)

[] The question may help APM reflect on the terminology and possible actions

[] The group should just ask the person to clarify

(photo: Trent Gilliss) Lindsay contemplates during a larger...

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:43:35 -0400

(photo: Trent Gilliss)

Lindsay contemplates during a larger group session during the kick-off summit for the Strategic Initiative.

H0, H1

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:41:00 -0400

Julia Schrenkler

The Online Engagement group is determining the difference between action, recommendation, and pursuit. Team Lead Mike Reszler pushed us to consider our action list as an opportunity to do some hypothesis testing.

Other departments: I’m open to your suggestions for rigor and communication on that.

"Where’s the commonality?"

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:27:00 -0400

“Where’s the commonality?”

- Julia Schrenkler

Mike Reszler inspires us to find the commonalities in our own ideas. I’d love to see the same action around the idea process as done - independently - in APM | MPR’s various departments and from the public.

ETA: The ideas and questions we captured? They’ll be communicated internally.

Structured brainstorming

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:22:48 -0400

Julia Schrenkler

Traditional brainstorming seems to be more about storming and less concerned with the brain. It is open, noisy, and usually enjoyable.

Today our Team Lead (MPR.org’s Managing Online Editor, Mike Reszler) charged us in something I’ll loosely call comparitive brainstorming. He asked each team member to quietly write one idea of what we should do and to capture one question we’d like answered as they relate to online engagement. Then we went around the room (here’s the noisy part) and used appreciative inquiry to clarify and further understand each other’s ideas. I found that to be the enjoyable part.

While our group of 12 (no disciple jokes please) presented each thought, every query, I couldn’t help but wonder how PublicRadioCamp attendees would answer this challenge.

1. What is one online interactive idea you’d like to see APM | MPR try?
2. What question would you like to see APM | MPR ask - and answer - to be better for you online?

Normally we’d call for comments, but to follow Mike’s challenge I’d like to see you send in your thoughts [link here] and then we’ll make all of them (including our own) public for discussion.

Vision, the verb

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:21:56 -0400

Julia Schrenkler:

As the media landscape changes, so do media companies. My employer, American Public Media, opened a visioning group as part of the strategic process. Translation: APM | MPR decided to drive its own evolution, instead of letting change reshape - or worse, eliminate - itself.

All day Wednesday I’ll be part of the Online Engagement team and will liveblog it here. We’ll [enjoyably so] wrestle with learning how to work together in our fresh structure, and determine the group’s deliverables.

What Makes Us Feel Good Rather Than What Benefits the Audience

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:02:00 -0400

Trent Gilliss

Brendan and Jeff both articulated a challenging question that gets to the heart of the matter regarding digital technology and applications. Do we get caught up in creating really cool applications that don’t engage the audience for how much developing the game/tool/app really cost? Is this what the audience considers really fun and learning? Do we do things that are too high-minded? Are we afraid of being popular?

Commenting Across All Stories

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:58:08 -0400

Trent Gilliss

Wade poses an interesting question that’s ongoing within many industries, including the journalism business. Do we allow the audience to comment on anything, and how do we moderate it?

"Infiltrate social networking"

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:55:15 -0400

“Infiltrate social networking”

- Lindsay’s provocative statement about what we might do as a company in which we don’t just have a presence but that we participate fully, including through widgets, tools, advertising(?), etc.

To What Extent Are We Willing to Disclose?

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:52:12 -0400

Trent Gilliss

As we try to figure out what it means to engage our audiences through content, membership, funders, colleagues, and audience, we’re wrestling with a group as to how much of the “sausage-making” part of the process do we want to share with our co-workers and our public audience.

The jury is out within our own group. There’s a delicate balance here. How do we create a safe space where the members of the task group can speak openly and candidly without self-moderating to the point of squelching conversation ideas? Can we put out final resolutions without showing you how we arrived at these objectives, or is it better to filter our discussion and focus the topic for your benefit?

My understanding of audience as it relates to running Speaking of Faith’s online presence is that the more, the better — as long as it relates to the subject matter at hand and it’s given context. We’re trying to figure this out, and, in the process we’ll be asking you for your ideas and comments.