PBS REACTING TO PRESSURE ON INDECENCY, MITCHELL CONCEDES

Mitchell used the edits on the U.S. broadcast of Prime Suspect as an example: “It had the ‘f-word’ in it, so we had to cut it. We know that in this period of time, we have to make sure we are compliant on what is clear. We need to protect people who want to test the limits of expression, but we also have to protect our stations.” Asked whether she thought the FCC’s obscenity stance was a byproduct of a presidential election year, Mitchell declined to speculate: “It seems to me that if you look back there have been times in the history of our industry where we've gone back and forth over issues of language and violence and we have gone through a lot if reiterations of FCC standards. I think the petitions that are before the FCC indicate the world we are living is an unsure world.”

Mitchell blamed the sharp decline in underwriters over the past 3 years on the confluence of several factors. In addition to the social uncertainty after 9/11 and the ad turndown of the past several years, there has been a shift in the way large companies approach giving money, she said: “It used to be that if a CEO loved a program, he wrote the check and informed his board of directors where the money had gone. Now, more and more philanthropic dollars have been pooled and given to media agencies. That’s been part of this transition that has affected us more.”

Financial solutions are being developed, Mitchell stressed: “The future of PBS is not in peril, but it is in transition. Funding is a challenge but it is not insurmountable.” Mitchell said PBS had gained 11 new underwriters, and part of the PBS’s strength going forward is its reach: “We're like a pyramid. The broadcast is just the top but then is supported by the web site and by our community outreach. In a time when PVRs are driving the broadcasters nuts, PBS offers advertisers established reach. Advertisers are starting to come back because of that reach. And we still have big, huge companies who have stuck with us during this time and increased their commitment to us. Johnson & Johnson stepped up immediately for American Family. Now a company that relied solely on a media agency might not have done that. But there is a very real brand lift that happens that companies enjoy when they are associated with PBS programming.”

Despite the new underwriters, Mitchell admitted PBS’s signature series, Masterpiece Theater had yet to find a corporate home. Mitchell said the difficulty is frustrating but in some ways understandable. “Perhaps it was a strategic mistake announcing we were committed to the show through 2006. Perhaps it gave potential underwriters the sense there was time. We need to instill the sense of urgency because drama has to be commissioned 2 years in advance. While everyone loves the show and its quality, the sticking point is the price -- the price is very high for a single sponsor and in fact is so high there’s probably not one company who will do it alone so we are looking at multiple underwriters. And I believe we will succeed.” Mitchell refused to consider cancelling the series. “We would miss it because it has some of the greatest viewer loyalty of anything we have on the air.”

The challenge to maintain necessary funding has led PBS to look at new technologies for untapped revenue streams, Mitchell said: “Our content library is so enormous and has such deep research, it has long term value.” Making the content available on media such as DVDs and VoD could prove an important source of revenue. Until then, however, the often-maligned pledge drives will remain. Mitchell defended the stations’ choice of pledge programming, saying: “When some stations are raising up to 70% of the yearly revenue through pledge, who are we to judge what works?” To further help stations, Mitchell said it was necessary for CPB to broaden its outlook. “Since we don’t have to figure out how to profit from our programming we just have to worry about funding it. At PBS we realized we needed to be less reliant on stations’ dues. We have to let them keep local dollars at home as much as possible which is why we have established a PBS foundation in the same way there’s an NPR foundation -- to go out to find independent programming money.”

Mitchell also reaffirmed PBS’s commitment to public affairs: “We are increasing out commitment when others are backing away. Our mandate is to be an op-ed page, as it were, for the electronic age. For the last 30 years we have expressed a wide variety of views. For a while we were define by Bill Buckley and in the last few by Bill Moyers but we are not in pursuit of political equivalency. We have a real role to play and you can’t have a strong democracy unless you get people engaged.”

Mitchell took exception to the suggestion her recent meeting about replacing MPAA Pres. Jack Valenti was an indication she was less that fully committed to PBS: “I want to clear up some misinterpretations. I was called about the job by Jack Valenti himself, who suggested I go after the job. I was urged to consider it -- so that I would know whether it was right for me -- so I was given permission to interview. I did one round of interviews, saw what would be interesting about the job but knew I wasn’t going to pursue it further. I came back from those interviews and wrote the stations saying this is where I want to be.”