 |
|
|
|||||
As Congress moves to make massive cuts to public broadcasting this week, Paula Kerger, president and CEO of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), gives an unflinching look at the organizations financial reality if its federal funding is stripped, and how shes battling to protect the networks iconic programmingfrom Frontline to Sesame Street. Kerger shares the role of corporate philanthropy in PBSs future, its relationship with streamers like Netflix, and how she handles allegations of public media bias. Whether or not you’re an avid Nova or Ken Burns viewer, PBS’s challenge captures critical lessons about focus, mission, and the need to evolve or die trying. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. A lot of people, I guess, misunderstand what PBS is. You mentioned these 300-some local member stations that control their own programming. So what’s the role of PBS in that system? Since I’ve been in this job, I’ve spent a lot of time on the road visiting stations. I came into it from our station in New York. I was the station manager there, and I knew a lot about public broadcasting from the lens of WNET. I worked on an island off of the coast of North America, and so when I first took this job, I went on the road. I went to every state across the country, and I wanted to see what public broadcasting really looked like at the ground level because people do misunderstand. We’re not a network. We’re not like CBS or NBC. We don’t control any of these stations. We were built by the stations themselves to be able to deliver at scale the things that individual stations wouldn’t be able to do by themselves. Even my old station in New York would not have been able to produce a NewsHour and a Sesame Street and a Masterpiece and a Great Performances and a Nature and a Nova. But if you put all of the resources together and people sort of shared in program acquisition and also shared in an ability to move content in between stations, you actually have something that is. Actually, the S in PBS represents the service that we provide for our public broadcasting system. And so, each station is independent. They make the decision what they air. I always say if you want a lesson in humility, run a federated organization because you have a lot of responsibility, but you absolutely don’t have ultimate authority over a whole series of things that people assume you do. Federal funding accounts for a portion of your budget, right? Yes. There are legislative challenges to that underway. There’s an executive order that you’ve sued to block. I know you’re hoping none of this comes to pass, but do you have to prepare now in case the funding goes away? So in aggregate, the amount of federal money that comes into public broadcasting is about 15%. The federal money that we’re talking about, that’s under debate in Congress, 70% of that actually goes directly to stations, and then a little bit of it comes to us. So 15%, someone just said to me a little while ago, well, that doesn’t sound like a lot. Maybe you could make that up. For us, the amount of money that we would lose would be significant, but if you’re sitting in a small community and 40% of your budget is the federal support, you probably can’t make that up. And this is actually why we fight so hard to try to hold onto that funding. You mentioned the name of that hearing, and the impression is like, oh, PBS and this funding is a conduit for a certain kind of content to be infiltrated into some of these smaller communities as well as larger ones. Do you think there’s anything you could do to sort of change the impression of PBS from this administration, change the programming, change the talent, anything? Do you think about that? We’ve always had really passionate supporters all across the political spectrum. . . . I think in some ways, perhaps we’re a talking point. I don’t know. During the hearing, some of the programs I was asked about are more than 10 years old, and I think someone just looked through a list and pulled some titles rather than actually understanding what it is that we have on the air. And I’ll tell you, Bob, I actually just got a note from someone over the weekend that said, “I think there may be some bias in what you do.” And I said, “Well, can you give me an example of what you’re talking about?” And many times they can’t. Usually I think at that point they’re talking about news, which is a piece of what we do. It’s an important piece. We do the news every night. And then, we also have Frontline, which I often say is the most important series we have on our air. So few media organizations are doing investigative journalism anymore, and I know those programs have been heavily used by legislators and policy makers as well as the general public. So to me, all of this feels not exactly what people have represented. I don’t know. The brand of PBS, you mentioned the historical bipartisan support, and it’s almost like the brand has been turned into meaning something different than it meant in a very short period of time. Well, we’ve done a lot of surveys, and we do all the time. I take to heart our obligations to serve all of America. And I feel in this moment, people have put themselves into these little bubbles where they’re only getting information or interested in information that reflects back their own perspectives. And I think the role of any media organization should be to challenge people to understand that people have different perspectives. We can agree that we may not agree with someone’s point of view, but we can accept the fact that that’s a legitimate point of view. We seem to have lost all of that. Everything has devolved into “I’m right and you’re wrong.” But at our heart, I think we agree with a lot of key ideas and principles. And so, how do we get back to that again? How do we get back to helping people understand information that is going to be important for them for their lives? And that’s what we do. And when you choose to take legal action against the Trump administration, against the executive order, how much do you worry that there’s a certain part of the country that’s just going to say, yep, that confirms that they’re against our president? I mean, those are tough decisions, right? Yeah. This was a really tough decision, and I had people that were very anxious that we file immediately, “Why haven’t you filed yet?” And I had others that said, “Just make sure that you really have looked at this carefully.” I mean, the decision to file was not one that we took lightly, and frankly, we filed with a great amount of sadness. And it was sobering to look at the first draft of ourcomplaint that begins PBS v. Donald J. Trump, to the fact that we would ever be in a position where we would be involved in legal action against the president of the United States is nothing that I ever thought we would be in, but the executive order was one we had to respond to. It made it illegal for any federal money to come into public broadcasting. This executive order would’ve restricted any of our stations from using any money that they received from the government. I mean, it would basically unwind our system. So we then made the decision that we were going to go forward, but it is not anything that I wanted to do.
Category:
E-Commerce
Every beauty founder dreams of accomplishing what Rhode just achieved: a billion-dollar valuation, a cultural following, and a brand that seems to dominate every platform it touches. Of course, Rhodes explosive growth is rare. Not every brand can rely on a high-profile founder or massive social presence. But while Rhode may look like a celebrity influencer-driven success, the truth is, Hailey Bieber didnt just launch another product line; she created a thoughtful, curated brand rooted in an ecosystem of wellness, beauty, and simplicity. Backed by her authenticity and a deep understanding of her audience, Rhode stands for more than just beauty. Rhode is Hailey and all that she embodiesher fame, look, and lifestyleall of which resonate with todays consumers.The big question for e.l.f. is what happens next? What follows are some thoughts on how they might capitalize on their investment, as well as risks that brands often face in the pursuit of online momentum. The cost of chasing clicks Balancing momentum and meaning is key to maintaining authentic engagement. Momentum gets your brand noticed. Its about gaining traction, sparking conversations, and connecting with your audience. On the other hand, meaning keeps your brand loved. Its the depth of the relationship your customers have with your brand, built on brand identity, consistency, and cultural integration. The problem arises when momentum takes precedence over meaning. It is understandable that acquirers who have paid top dollar feel the need to take quick action. Who doesnt want to see an immediate return on their investment? This said, knee-jerk reactions to sign an influencer or flood the feed with user-generated content can leave ones core consumers feeling confused, even alienated. To avoid missteps, it is critical to socialize the new employees and third parties to the key tenets of the brand to ensure that teams lean more into play than playbook. Channel your efforts Once the narrative is clear and the actions defined, the next step is knowing where and how to deploy them. As a brand matures, it is important to show up for your community where they live, not just where they scroll. For direct-to-consumer brands, the question of optimizing ones website and digital platforms remains paramount. This said, one piece of advice I often give to young companies once theyve achieved a certain critical mass is to get offline as quickly as possible. Its psychological. TikTok screams, Were the hot, young thing, while physical stores, brand partnerships, events, installations, makeup artist appointments, and old world media say, Were here to stay, whenever and wherever you may need us. Acquirers have a tendency to shy away from these offline actions viewing them as low profit margin areas or even cost centers. However, by shoring up the brand across every channel and touchpoint, you signal to the market that the brand is solid and trustworthy. Authenticity wins Lets talk about what allows beauty brands to cut through the noise, because its not just another double cleanse. MILK girls do their make-up in the backs of cabs, is a tagline I still remember almost a decade later. Just when we thought it was impossible to talk about novel ways in which to apply cosmetics, along comes MILK with a bold campaign, replete with funky models and iconic product packaging, that reflected its edgy, downtown NYC ethos. Like everything MILK does, it was authentic to its roots. Year after year, this constant creativity and calculated risk taking has helped MILK to cut through the noise of what is arguably the worlds most saturated industry. Thats the power of investing early in strong positioning. Scaling smartly The temptation when scaling is often to try to do everything at once. Years ago, an adviser taught me about Igor Ansoff, the father of strategic management, and his famous Ansoff Matrix. With this simple tool, Ansoff outlines the four ways in which a company can grow: market penetration (selling more to your existing audiences), market development (entering new markets), product development (creating new products), and diversification (entering new lines of business). With Rhodes scale and cultural relevance, they can execute across all four. The key is doing so strategically and methodically. With the Ansoff Matrix in mind, e.l.fs has a clear path to structured growth. Top of Haileys to-do list will be to open up new markets. A wellness line feels inevitableperhaps at Erewhon, the deal negotiated over a Hailey smoothie. And given Rhodes neutral aesthetic, it could develop a mens line. First product, Crashed Ferrari? A Rhode capsule collection at Alo seems a no-brainer, and thinking laterally, how about a move into wellness and travel publishing (On the Rhode, anyone?), or designing the first Rhode retreat? Rhodes success is proof that standing for something beyond products pays off. So define that identity early and stick with it uncompromisingly. The balance between momentum and meaning isnt a onetime act; its a discipline, and its what will sustain brands for years to come. Geoff Cook is a partner at global branding agency, Base, and a strategic advisor to beauty conglomerate Waldencast.
Category:
E-Commerce
It’s not a great time to be a Tesla shareholder. While the stock was up 2.5% in midday trading on Tuesday, July 8, it remains down for the month and has lost nearly 25% of its value over the past six months. In most companies, such a performance would have senior executives tugging at their collars and glancing nervously over their shoulders. But Elon Musk, Teslas CEO, isnt showing any signs of concern, at least not publicly. Despite being the worlds richest man, Musk is not untouchable at Tesla. He is the largest shareholder, with a 12.75% stake, but that doesnt grant him voting control. (Compare that to Mark Zuckerberg, who owns 13% of Meta’s stock but holds 50% of the total voting power due to a dual-class share structure.) In theory, if shareholder and board patience wore thin, Musk could be ousted. Whether that would ever actually happen is another matter entirely. For now, Musks position appears secure, but investor patience is certainly being tested. On Teslas April earnings call, Musk promised to dedicate more time to the company after spending much of the first quarter engaged in political matters in Washington, D.C. However, his recent launch of the America Party and ongoing battles with President Trump have further agitated shareholders. (Tesla did not respond to Fast Companys request for comment.) Longtime Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives delivered an unusually sharp critique of the company on July 8, warning that Musks political distractions could cost Tesla up to $1 trillion in autonomous vehicle sales. We believe the board now has to take the bull by the horns, Ives wrote in a note to investors. He outlined three recommendations for the board: Assemble a new pay package for Musk that would give him 25% voting control, paving the way for a potential merger between Tesla and xAI. Include in that package a clear expectation for how much time Musk must spend at Tesla. Set limits on Musks involvement in political matters. Some general guardrails on this front would help everyone involved, including institutional investors, retail investors, Musk himself, the Board, and Tesla employees around the world, Ives wrote. Musk responded on X to Ivess note on Tuesday, writing simply: “Shut up, Dan.” Shut up, Dan— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 8, 2025 Ives isnt the only analyst raising concerns. On the same day as Ivess post, Morgan Stanley cautioned that investors should be prepared for further devotion of resources (financial, time/attention) in the direction of Mr. Musk’s political priorities which may add further near-term pressure to [Tesla] shares. Whether Teslas board will act is unclear. It has faced long-standing criticism for being too closely aligned with Musk. Critics point to the $56 billion pay package approved in 2018 and the board’s lack of action in response to Musks controversial behavior online and elsewhere. Musk’s personal ties to the boardwhich includes his brother, Kimbal Musk, and Airbnb cofounder Joe Gebbiahave further fueled these concerns. Theres also the question of whether the board could act independently without near-unanimous shareholder support. A lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court over Musks pay package revealed that Tesla requires a supermajoritytwo-thirds of shareholdersto make significant changes at the company. That said, the idea of replacing Musk has at least been explored. In May, The Wall Street Journal reported that Teslas board had contacted executive search firms to initiate a formal CEO search process. Tesla denied the report, stating on X: The CEO of Tesla is Elon Musk and the Board is highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the exciting growth plan ahead, according to Tesla chair Robyn Denholm. Regardless of whether that report was accurate, investors have reason to be uneasy. The companys market cap has fallen from $1.5 trillion in December to $945 billion, and Musks attention continues to be divided. “The biggest asset for Tesla is Musk . . . and they have never needed him more than today,” Ives said on CNBC on Tuesday afternoon. “They need to show, from an investor perspective, that there is a pilot on the plane.”
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||