Liberty TV, revisited

[AceNZ]

Does anyone remember the Liberty TV project / discussion from 4 yrs ago?

I recently found a TV station that's for sale. They've negotiated an agreement to go up on satellite, which would be a key part of the plan.

The station is located in New Zealand, but with satellite distribution, they would have international reach, including US.

The cost isn't small, but it's not out of reach of a small but determined group, either (annual costs for satellite delivery are by far the largest component).

I'm interested in what people here think of the idea. Any guess about what it would take to raise money for this kind of thing?

[Bastiat's The Law]

We need a U.S. based channel if we want to attract a dream team line up like the Judge, Stossel, Ben Swann, etc.

[AceNZ]

The challenge with an entirely US-based channel is first that the cost would be at least ten times as high, and that you are then subject to pressure from the FCC and other US-based organizations--which wouldn't normally be an issue, but when it comes to modern politics, it most definitely would be.

What about having a studio in the US, with satellite uplink overseas? Most content can be recorded for later broadcast, right?

I guess I'm thinking of something along the lines of RTV or PressTV, but with a Liberty focus.

[thoughtomator]

television and liberty really don't go all that well together

[AceNZ]

television and liberty really don't go all that well together

Why do you say that?

TV, used properly, can be a powerful educational tool. The Left recognized this fact long ago, and has now turned their version of TV into a weapon against Liberty. But it doesn't have to be that way.

[idiom]

I do NZ based TV stations. Who is for sale?

If you want liberty you need to get outside of the U.S.

You need to create a globally trusted 24/7 news source rather than a niche one hour per week youtube/fox outlet. Compete with CNN international and the BBC rather than Fox and MSNBC.

I am building a 24/7 sports channel across 11 pacific nations already. The same infrastructure could trivially run a news network.

My guess is you actually don't want the old station. I have gone that route before and these days its far cheaper to start from scratch.

As my current tech breakthrough is an ability to do a pure 3D workflow very cheaply and easily. That gives one a huge leg up for developing penetration.

Once you are the primary source for all news you start giving everything anti-government headlines. You move the entire global conversation.

Additionally this approach could survive on carriage fees and minor advertising alone meaning it won't have to kowtow to corporate interests.

I have global satellite and fibre access all set up. In excess capacity.


Concurrent thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394532-Just-thinking-out-loud-here...Liberty-news-channel&p=4715182#post4715182

Mod to merge?

[Paul Fan]

Yes! Do it! Issue liberty shares, buy the station (or equivalent) and start spreading the liberty message . I will gladly contribute.

[Stellwagen]

kickstart it, or moneybomb it. something like that. you'd need one big person, like swann to be on board from the start though.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The challenge with an entirely US-based channel is first that the cost would be at least ten times as high, and that you are then subject to pressure from the FCC and other US-based organizations--which wouldn't normally be an issue, but when it comes to modern politics, it most definitely would be.

What about having a studio in the US, with satellite uplink overseas? Most content can be recorded for later broadcast, right?

I guess I'm thinking of something along the lines of RTV or PressTV, but with a Liberty focus.
The lifeblood to make a Liberty orientated network work would be staffing it with great people from top to bottom and paying them well to lure them away from the big networks to come work for us. My understanding is that most everything media related is based out of NYC.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Current TV did it why can't we?

[matt0611]

Liberty TV would be great.

You got Peter Schiff which you could broadcast everyday, The Judge, maybe Ben Swann, etc

[Jeremy]

IMO it's a waste of money. People tried and failed 4 years ago.

[ShaneEnochs]

I honestly think that TV isn't the place where we should go. It's the Internet. I think we should go to YouTube and do shows, and then pour in money to promote it not only on YouTube but through Google ads as well. It can be done very professionally as long as we put enough money into it.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Liberty TV would be great.

You got Peter Schiff which you could broadcast everyday, The Judge, maybe Ben Swann, etc
See now those names would lend creditability to the network.

[ShaneEnochs]

See now those names would lend creditability to the network.

It would literally take tens of millions (if not hundreds) to do it in a way to compete with MSM. An Internet show would be 1/1000 of that cost, and more people are moving to the Internet to get their news.

[Andyc3020]

Who would sponsor "Liberty TV"?

[Bastiat's The Law]

I honestly think that TV isn't the place where we should go. It's the Internet. I think we should go to YouTube and do shows, and then pour in money to promote it not only on YouTube but through Google ads as well. It can be done very professionally as long as we put enough money into it.
Yeah, but the over 40 crowd still get their news from the TV networks and its saturation effect of 24/7 bombardment is astonishingly effective. I was just having this conversation with someone who found out, somewhat surprisingly, that their family considers themselves libertarians. What channel does the family watch 24/7 you ask? FoxNews.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Who would sponsor "Liberty TV"?
We would need venture capitalists.

[Barrex]

IMO it's a waste of money. People tried and failed 4 years ago.

Detalis? Or link to details? How much was invested? How many were involved?


Starting a local radio station is easy and cheap here. Get program and fill blanks with music.

3000 euros for equipment fees and you are good to go.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It would literally take tens of millions (if not hundreds) to do it in a way to compete with MSM. An Internet show would be 1/1000 of that cost, and more people are moving to the Internet to get their news.
True, but not the ideal demographic we want to reach. I'm not saying a well-produced Internet show wouldn't have value in doing, and if that's the only option we should explore it too. It has to be well-produced and polished though, something along the lines of the Young Turks or videos Reason puts out. The trouble with them though is they don't really have set content, like Ben Swann does this daily show at this hour every week day. Cenk does have a schedule sort of and I think that helped his shows popularity.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

As a libertarian journalist, I would gladly work for free to support this idea.

This is exactly what the libertarian movement needs a TV station or a newspaper. Either one would be a triumphant boost to the liberty movement and we would see real changes because of it.

Will it work? My advice would be that the TV station would not want to come off as MSNBC or FOX. Look at Stossel and Ben Swann, they have a larger audience than just libertarians because of how they present the message. So, yes I absolutely believe the network would be solvent.

New media is great, but old media systems, TV, radio, newspapers, are worthy investments and reach demographics that the libertarian message isn't currently reaching. If we want to expand the message, it only makes sense we should be seen in all medias, TV is no exception.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I suggest we cast a wider net and not just target libertarian journalists. I think Glen Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill would be excellent contributors to any Liberty network.

[ShaneEnochs]

You know, if we're going to do something like this, it might actually be super important to talk to Ben Swann and ask him the ins and outs and ask which route he thinks would be the best way to go. He's kind of an expert in this field.

[Matthew5]

How would deals with U.S. television providers work?

[kahless]

The channel should not target Libertarians but people you want to convert into Libertarians. All the efforts that went into trying to elect Ron Paul should be going to gathering investors for such an endeavor. Otherwise the values we all cherish in these forums will continue to erode each election cycle. You can see coming failure this far out already with the media already campaigning for Rubio, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.

It needs to be on the same level of the major news channels along with a wire service or national newspaper. Considering the changing demographics one should be looking at a multi-ethnic channel and a secondary Spanish language news channel.

[Matthew5]

Wonder if Peter Thiel is still interested in the Liberty movement? He might have some connections that you could utilize.

[AceNZ]

How would deals with U.S. television providers work?

Most US providers are desperate for content. If we offer ours for free (at first), it would be an easy pick-up.

[AceNZ]

I honestly think that TV isn't the place where we should go. It's the Internet. I think we should go to YouTube and do shows, and then pour in money to promote it not only on YouTube but through Google ads as well. It can be done very professionally as long as we put enough money into it.

We already pretty much own the Internet. It's not enough. A website or YouTube videos should be secondary, not primary.

If we're going to have any real impact on the electorate, we need to reach a much broader and deeper group of people. Old media is still the best way to do that.

[Chester Copperpot]

I like the idea and would also work for free as some sort of writer or content person..

But here's a question..

Instead of a TV network.. How cost effective do you think it would be just to do late nite infomercials instead?

[AceNZ]

It would literally take tens of millions (if not hundreds) to do it in a way to compete with MSM. An Internet show would be 1/1000 of that cost, and more people are moving to the Internet to get their news.

First, we won't be able to compete with domestic MSM for quite some time. That takes much more than money.

Next, sure, an Internet show would be 1/1000th the cost. It would also be 1/1000th as effective. There are already a large number of such shows.

[AceNZ]

How cost effective do you think it would be just to do late nite infomercials instead?

There's a reason late night infomercials are cheap: their reach is very low.

Also, as soon as we start to say anything controversial, the network carrying the infomercials would boot us.

[AceNZ]

Who would sponsor "Liberty TV"?


We would need venture capitalists.

I wouldn't want traditional VCs to be involved. I've been down that road before, with other companies; VCs would want to exert too much control. I think the only way this could really fly in the way we want is if it had grassroots funding.

I guess that's part of what I'm trying to explore in this thread: would enough of the grassroots get behind this to make it possible? If we wait for others to do it, it may never get done -- so why not do it ourselves?

[Bastiat's The Law]

I wouldn't want traditional VCs to be involved. I've been down that road before, with other companies; VCs would want to exert too much control. I think the only way this could really fly in the way we want is if it had grassroots funding.

I guess that's part of what I'm trying to explore in this thread: would enough of the grassroots get behind this to make it possible? If we wait for others to do it, it may never get done -- so why not do it ourselves?
I would help any way I can with that effort. We should contact Jeremy Richter on this endeavor.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bojzBPvvibg

[acptulsa]

I recently found a TV station that's for sale. They've negotiated an agreement to go up on satellite, which would be a key part of the plan.

The station is located in New Zealand, but with satellite distribution, they would have international reach, including US.

I need more explanation.

So, the satellite feed is of course the key, since you can't even broadcast to Australia with a typical television station in New Zealand. So, the only way this is anything more than an internet venture here in the U.S. is if we get various (a whole lot of various) local U.S. stations to carry the feed. Now, we can either do this by buying their broadcast time (which requires we sell a whole lot of commercials) or by selling just enough commercials to cover our costs and offering them content that will enable them to sell more commercials locally.

Am I reading this right? If so, how is the New Zealand connection advantageous? Is it just the sat link? Do we have to go Down Under to get that? Do they have guarantees that they won't get their sat link booted? For how long?

[AceNZ]

What I have in mind is something like this:

1. A web page or two that describes the proposed project in detail.
2. A request for pledges, of three kinds: immediate, triggered after we raise $X or achieve some milestone, and commitments to subscribe to the channel for X months after it's on the air
3. A request for people who would be willing to provide their services for free or at a substantially reduced rate
4. A request for high-quality content: begin building a library of quality content right from the beginning
5. Commitments from willing advertisers, of the form "if you can deliver X, we would be willing to pay Y"

The project would happen in phases. There are still details to be worked out, but it basically comes down to first acquiring or building some infrastructure, then establishing some of the content in a local environment, then obtaining commitments from cable networks and others to carry the channel, followed by going up on satellite.

Funds that are collected would be held in an escrow account until any associate milestones are hit.

Once the website is ready, the next phase is marketing it, through the usual ways: FB, etc.

[acptulsa]

The project would happen in phases. There are still details to be worked out, but it basically comes down to first acquiring or building some infrastructure, then establishing some of the content in a local environment, then obtaining commitments from cable networks and others to carry the channel, followed by going up on satellite.

Would we not have to establish more than 'some of the content in a local environment' before we could secure commitments from cable networks and others? What do you mean by 'in a local environment'? Would not 'cable networks and others' be susceptible to pressure from their other sources to keep us out? Is the satellite merely our way to get our feed to the 'cable networks and others'? How, specifically, would the New Zealand connection smooth our path through the FCC maze? Would we have to pay to get this carried, or merely provide x amount of time for cable (and others) to insert commercials? Would 'cable networks and others' pay us for the content?

[AceNZ]

So, the satellite feed is of course the key, since you can't even broadcast to Australia with a typical television station in New Zealand. So, the only way this is anything more than an internet venture here in the U.S. is if we get various (a whole lot of various) local U.S. stations to carry the feed.

We don't need TV stations to carry the feed; we need cable networks and the like to carry it.


Now, we can either do this by buying their broadcast time (which requires we sell a whole lot of commercials) or by selling just enough commercials to cover our costs and offering them content that will enable them to sell more commercials locally.

A typical cable distribution agreement includes selling the cable provider some time on the channel for them to resell for ads.

However, the big lure for cable companies is not the ads, but the content. Good content is in very high demand.


Am I reading this right? If so, how is the New Zealand connection advantageous? Is it just the sat link? Do we have to go Down Under to get that? Do they have guarantees that they won't get their sat link booted? For how long?

NZ is advantageous because they have very liberal TV broadcast and business rules compared to the US, and because it removes us by one layer from the influence of the US Government, in the form of the FCC and their surrogates.

We don't have to go to NZ for an uplink; it's just a convenient spot where the required infrastructure is readily available.

I'm not aware of the NZ govt booting anyone off a sat link, ever. The bigger issue is with the satellite provider, and those issues can be addressed contractually.

[idiom]

AceNZ, your inbox is full so I will just stick this here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/7240600/Sports-body-planning-new-free-to-air-TV-channel

[AceNZ]

Would we not have to establish more than 'some of the content in a local environment' before we could secure commitments from cable networks and others?

I don't think we would need to have every show we're ever going to have in order to secure commitments. The idea is to have enough for cable networks and the like to be comfortable that the content is rich enough and interesting enough to be worth it.


What do you mean by 'in a local environment'?

I mean not on satellite -- direct broadcast in the home area (which I'm suggesting could be NZ).


Would not 'cable networks and others' be susceptible to pressure from their other sources to keep us out?

Yes. But those exerting pressure have much less leverage if the content doesn't originate in the US.


Is the satellite merely our way to get our feed to the 'cable networks and others'?

Yes.


How, specifically, would the New Zealand connection smooth our path through the FCC maze?

The FCC only has authority over signals originating in the US, not over what comes down from international satellites.


Would we have to pay to get this carried, or merely provide x amount of time for cable (and others) to insert commercials? Would 'cable networks and others' pay us for the content?

Cable networks would pay us, not the other way around. The exact form that payment takes is subject to negotiation.

One way to get our foot in the door is to make the content available very inexpensively. However, this needs to be balanced with satellite distribution costs, which are significant.

[idiom]

The Plan:

Cable networks won't carry the feed unless you have something nobody else does.

I propose 3D news, and breaking global coverage. I would really like to get some ex-military people to go places regular journalists can't or won't.

CNN had basically no experienced journalists when they started. Just straight out of college VJ's who shot and edited their own reports three times a day.

Why New Zealand:

New Zealand has none of this:

http://transition.fcc.gov/FCC-11-4.pdf

America has so many rules it hard to wrap my head around. Australia is the same way, but not quite as bad.

Naming:


Who would sponsor "Liberty TV"?

If I may, internally I have been working with:

IFP
International Free Press
For Information, Freedom and Peace

Who doesn't want to trust that? There are a lot of global brands that would love to be associated with that. Mostly you are talking airlines, insurance, banking, hotel chains and shipping.

Funding:

Venture Capital will be interested because we can turn out a $100 Million business for <$10 Mil.

This could be done through Kickstarter, but we would need an American funding host. Where could I ever find a co-operative American?



Point being, I am already doing this, but for sports. I am building the infrastructure, the carriage agreements, the transmitters, the staff networks, all of it. To expand into news, I need a little bit of money and some more people.

[AceNZ]

AceNZ, your inbox is full so I will just stick this here:

Interesting; thanks. I've cleaned out my inbox, too.

[acptulsa]

Thanks for the clarifications. It sounds very promising.

So, does the 'content originating outside the U.S.' imply something that is actually broadcast? Or is that not a specific requirement? And will the New Zealand home market really be interested in the U.S. reporting that we're bound to want to broadcast? I'd hate to think our home market station would be a major financial drain on the operation.

I'd also like to state for the record, in case other people are thinking as I do, that this in no way prevents us from gaining broadcast stations here in the U.S. (provided we draw up our contracts correctly). There have been other instances of content being picked up by local broadcasters after gaining traction on cable networks. MeTV, for example.

[idiom]

There would be an IFP America, as the would for most countries. It would cover a lot more local news.

It is important that we distinguish between wanting liberty news, and liberty punditry. We need actual journalism as a base. The American station would have a lot of punditry though, far more than the international stations, but not as much as Fox or MSNBC. Half the problem with American news is that you don't get fed any real international news. You don't told what American policies are really doing.

Changing just the headlines on stories would be impressive. "FEMA HINDERS AID IN NEW YORK" "CIA SUPPLYING AL QAEDA IN SYRIA" etc.

The BBC has a network of 250+ journalists.
CNN has fewer but uses affiliates globally. The Affiliates submit news and in return run CNN clips in their evening news.

[AceNZ]

So, does the 'content originating outside the U.S.' imply something that is actually broadcast? Or is that not a specific requirement?

The FCC only has control over RF emissions, which implies broadcast. Content can originate from anywhere if it's not broadcast. For example, it could be recorded in the US, sent to NZ over the Internet, and broadcast to satellite from there.


And will the New Zealand home market really be interested in the U.S. reporting that we're bound to want to broadcast? I'd hate to think our home market station would be a major financial drain on the operation.

No, but I think the place to start is not 100% US-focused news and information. As idiom suggested, something that competes with BBC or CNN International would be better. There is still LOTS of liberty oriented news and information in that area. That approach also opens up markets other than the US, which will help overcome the initial funding hurdles.

Once we get off the ground, and begin to have distribution in the US, then we can easily add US-focused content.

[idiom]

I also think it is incredibly important to export liberty and Austrian economics.

The globe needs to be told how Obama is extending and deepening the depression. Be told about the NDAA. They need reports in every country about how each government is over-reaching and creating unintended consequences.

In Australia right now they are debating the government giving payments to grandparents for babysitting, because families without grandparents get handouts for day-care.

The US is not the only game in town in terms of freedom.

We need assignment reporters in Gitmo, who just report the total lack of change from a new angle each week. We need 3D cameras interviewing families in Yemen showing all the collateral damage.

3D totally changes news by the way. It is far more compelling and engaging. It would give us something no other network has.

Its easy too:

Journalists in stable environments use this, its $30,000:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/imageController?path=Asset%20Hierarchy$Professiona l$SEL-yf-generic-153708$SEL-yf-generic-153752SEL-asset-273138.jpg&id=StepID$SEL-asset-273138&dimension=600x407

Others use this, its $3000:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/imageController?path=Asset%20Hierarchy$Professiona l$SEL-yf-generic-153708$SEL-yf-generic-153752HXR-NX3D1_cw_front_w-mic_w-hood.jpg&id=StepID$HXR-NX3D1_cw_front_w-mic_w-hood&dimension=600x407

Everyone else uses something like this:

http://www.htc.com/managed-assets/www/smartphones/htc-evo-3d/features/ksp1.png

[Bastiat's The Law]

I have several ideas for programming.

[acptulsa]

I like it. We seriously need to do something in this area. And this could not only be self-sustaining, but might just turn a profit.

Beats beating our heads against Rupert Murdoch's brick wall. And to tell you the truth, I think the market may just be ripening for it. People are seeing through Fox. They've promoted unelectable candidates for president twice in a row, now, and have reduced the GOP to rubble. Fox is getting exposed for the 'liberal media, undercover wing' they really are. And if we don't step up and fill that void, another Murdoch-style shill will.

I'm thinking this is a good business model at the right time.

[AceNZ]

It is important that we distinguish between wanting liberty news, and liberty punditry. We need actual journalism as a base. The American station would have a lot of punditry though, far more than the international stations, but not as much as Fox or MSNBC. Half the problem with American news is that you don't get fed any real international news. You don't told what American policies are really doing.

Agree.

Americans not only don't know what American policies are doing, they also have no idea what's really happening in the rest of the world; the MSM filters don't let much through.

I also like the idea of citizen journalism--everyday folks who do their own investigations, interviews, etc. Instead of uploading to YouTube, they upload to us. Quality control would be a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.


Changing just the headlines on stories would be impressive. "FEMA HINDERS AID IN NEW YORK" "CIA SUPPLYING AL QAEDA IN SYRIA" etc.

Absolutely. Injecting a liberty-focused spin would be an important part of our value-add.


BTW, regarding the earlier suggestion about using YouTube instead of having our own station, another issue there is that YouTube can and does censor people. Good videos get taken down all the time.

[AceNZ]

I also think it is incredibly important to export liberty and Austrian economics.

I have some quibbles with Austrian economics, but in general, yes, absolutely. Just helping to educate people about how banking, money and central banks really work would be huge.


The globe needs to be told how Obama is extending and deepening the depression. Be told about the NDAA. They need reports in every country about how each government is over-reaching and creating unintended consequences.

Agree.


We need assignment reporters in Gitmo, who just report the total lack of change from a new angle each week. We need 3D cameras interviewing families in Yemen showing all the collateral damage.

3D totally changes news by the way. It is far more compelling and engaging. It would give us something no other network has.

Love the idea of 3D.

[angelatc]

Current TV did it why can't we?

Al Gore has a lot of money and connections?

CurrentTV is losing cash hand over fist though. Just saw them mentioned on a list of "10 Brands That Will Likely Disappear in 2013."

[TonySutton]

I would love to see a comedy show in a Libertarian Utopia where they make fun of statism.

[acptulsa]

I would love to see a comedy show in a Libertarian Utopia where they make fun of statism.

Your basic sitcom featuring a couple who profess a love of liberty, and join opposite political parties in defense of liberty, perhaps. Or better still, a liberty loving Hyacinth Bucket who keeps interfering in people's lives and ruining them 'for their benefit'...

[AceNZ]

CurrentTV is losing cash hand over fist though. Just saw them mentioned on a list of "10 Brands That Will Likely Disappear in 2013."

Would be a great case study of what happens when true Progressives pretend to engage in Capitalism.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Al Gore has a lot of money and connections?

CurrentTV is losing cash hand over fist though. Just saw them mentioned on a list of "10 Brands That Will Likely Disappear in 2013."
Never advised to follow their business model, just that they got a network within a short span of time with upwards of 60 million potential viewers.

[TonySutton]

I occasionally watched CurrentTV. The problem I saw there was NOT ENOUGH programming. After you watch it on and off for a month you notice they are running the same shows over and over with very little NEW content.

The key to success is keeping the content new and fresh. Honestly I think the opportunities for liberty based shows are endless, especially with a world wide market.

[idiom]

Raw news s the easiest to do cheaply. There are 8760 hours in a year. You have an idea that will fill an hour a week? Great, that's 52 hours, and probably a minimum of 1 salary to produce.

I still need 8708 hours of content.

TV is *hard*

News and sport are two things you can produce cheaply with the same investment and staff. They have a minimum critical mass though. The can also have huge ratings.

A highly rating show could easily cost $500,000+ per hour to produce.

At one point CNN was producing 24/7 news more cheaply than CBS was producing 1 hour per night.

[acptulsa]

TV is *hard*

Yes. But I think we could do it. Hell, we could probably come up with 168 people capable of doing an hour of commentary a week, every week, and keeping it fresh. But that probably wouldn't be the most successful format.

Old television from before TV became a preaching box and more concerned with product placement than entertainment would be refreshing, and probably profitable. Old movies can fill some time. It isn't much to produce historical shows, and they would be useful toward our goals because we could revise some of the spin out of history. Hate to advocate ripping off Ken Burns, but he does have a way of making old tintypes into dynamic television. And news, of course. Wire service footage with our own spin would be different enough to attract viewers without costing an arm and a leg. We can impart a lot of information over a little stock CSPAN footage.

As for new-production entertainment, it's a big gamble. Could be a big boon, but we'd really have to be careful not to support something that wouldn't go over, or else it would be a big bust instead.

Most of all, I think countering Comedy Central is an area where we could make some serious waves. A sense of humor about the news without the statist slant would have some major potential.

[Bastiat's The Law]

One thing for sure we need is a call in show to get viewer participation high like CSPAN does.

[acptulsa]

Now what? Mediabomb? Sell shares? We know this is where we need to be. How do we get there?

[idiom]

I absolutely think we can do it. Even with half that number of people. But they need to be spread around the globe and chasing news stories and doing investigative journalism. A five to ten minute piece can be repeated every two hours for a day. When it slows down you can bring pundits into a studio for a natter and call it analysis.

I would also want to set up the main studios on a follow the sun basis. So something in New Zealand, something in Africa and something in Central or South America.

Once you have that backbone of international coverage you can layer over national shows as they become available.

[ShaneEnochs]

Here's the main question, though: where does the money come from? And who will be CEO?

[AceNZ]

Now what? Mediabomb? Sell shares? We know this is where we need to be. How do we get there?

What do you think of the plan I outlined earlier in this thread?

The first step there would be to put together a website to basically pitch the idea to potential customers. That, in turn, breaks down into a number of sub-steps. When we decide to get serious, we should also move the discussion off of RPF, to someplace more private.

[AceNZ]

Here's the main question, though: where does the money come from?

From the grassroots, as much as possible. I'd like to rule out VC money, but not corporate money (at least not yet). It's possible to structure acceptance of the latter with no strings attached; not so the former.


And who will be CEO?

way, way too early to make that kind of call. We need to have a functioning company in place before we can attract talented management.

[idiom]

I will be working up a business plan over the weekend. I am already pretty committed to this idea and have been seeking investors for about a while now. I am stepping that up.

If you want to be involved PM me. I have a lot of the groundwork already, partly thanks to the other channel I am currently launching. There is a lot of synergy here.



In the meantime check these out:

http://www.biscardicreative.com/blog/2012/08/how-i-would-fix-cnn-thoughts-from-a-cnn-veteran/
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-BBC-CNN-Managing-Organisations/dp/0415213223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352413010&sr=8-1&keywords=cnn+bbc

[ShaneEnochs]

From the grassroots, as much as possible. I'd like to rule out VC money, but not corporate money (at least not yet). It's possible to structure acceptance of the latter with no strings attached; not so the former.



way, way too early to make that kind of call. We need to have a functioning company in place before we can attract talented management.

The biggest moneybomb we have ever been able to pull off was... what? $6 million? That's barely a drop in the bucket for what we need, right?

[american.swan]

Friends. Garage. Breaker box. Wire. Lights. Painted cardboard wall. Camera. Web. Ustream. Start.

What are you waiting for?

[acptulsa]

Basically I have zero money to invest at the moment. But I'll contribute to this thing any other way I can.


The biggest moneybomb we have ever been able to pull off was... what? $6 million? That's barely a drop in the bucket for what we need, right?

idiom was talking ten mil in another thread. Starting small and growing is dangerous because there are certain fixed costs that must be covered. That makes it hard to come up with profits to reinvest, thus improving the product.

This would be a bit different from a money bomb, as people would own a piece of it. Of course, if it never pays a dividend, that doesn't mean much. But at least it could, in fact, eventually pay a dividend.

If we can position this thing to both go over Fox's head (with a conservative comedy central, with history, etc) and simultaneously be the Fox alternative, it does have the potential to be quite profitable. The time is right. We are pounding on Fox right now for screwing Republicans during the primaries by picking and promoting some serious losers. And we're not the only ones pointing out Fox's culpability in this fiasco any more. I smell a market. And I think we should be the ones to satisfy it--both because we should profit from this and because no one could do it better than we could.


Friends. Garage. Breaker box. Wire. Lights. Painted cardboard wall. Camera. Web. Ustream. Start.

What are you waiting for?

lol YouTube is overflowing with that. But there's truth to what you say. If the content is right, the rest can be improved as it catches on.

[AceNZ]

The biggest moneybomb we have ever been able to pull off was... what? $6 million? That's barely a drop in the bucket for what we need, right?

If we did it the conventional way, yes. By going the route I'm proposing, we can do it for a fraction of the cost. I don't want to quote numbers here, but I have them. Also, keep in mind that the project would be phased, so we don't need the full amount up-front.


Friends. Garage. Breaker box. Wire. Lights. Painted cardboard wall. Camera. Web. Ustream. Start.

What are you waiting for?

That kind of thing could be great later on. In the early stages, we need content with a very professional look-and-feel.


Basically I have zero money to invest at the moment. But I'll contribute to this thing any other way I can.

Your time is as good or better than money at this stage. There will be a LOT of work.


This would be a bit different from a money bomb, as people would own a piece of it. Of course, if it never pays a dividend, that doesn't mean much. But at least it could, in fact, eventually pay a dividend.

I think there would be different types of "investors." One would be a share-type owner, but another would be a pledge/promise to be a customer--the latter is very valuable in the early stages, in part because it helps entice the former to make more substantial commitments.

So, I think there *could* be a money bomb, though perhaps of a slightly different flavor than what's been done before.

[idiom]

A kickstarter doesn't sell shares, but rewards. I am trying to think what the rewards would be. $50 you get a T-shirt? $500 you get a nice plaque?


Friends. Garage. Breaker box. Wire. Lights. Painted cardboard wall. Camera. Web. Ustream. Start.

What are you waiting for?

That works well for indie film or arm-chair quarter backing, but it doesn't break stories or overturn governments.

CNN became CNN by being the only station on the ground in the first gulf war.

We could give most news station a run for their money for US$3m. We could give CNN a run for its money for $10m. Most of that is journalist salaries and expenses, like travel and live uplinks.

With SVCC we can uplink over 3G or so pretty reliably, but that tech is still rare. Normally you need cellular bonded modems that put multiple 3G connections together.

If you are reporting on a hurricane, or a war, you have to get the video out in real time with all the infrastructure down. Then you need a briefcase sized satellite uplink.


CNN does what it does for ~$600 million per year.

Half its revenue comes from carriage fees.

I think we can do what they do for 1/100th the cost, which may seem like a lot of money still, but there are hundreds of millions available without advertising.

[AGRP]

The internet is the present and the future. Its the TV that is trying to get with the times and mesh into the internet. TV is the standby for the 60+ year old crowd. Its not really that economically feasible to go after them.

[idiom]

The internet is the present and the future. Its the TV that is trying to get with the times and mesh into the Internet. TV is the standby for the 60+ year old crowd. Its not really that economically feasible to go after them.

Distribution is separate from contribution. You need the same contribution network either way. Any network getting built today should be web oriented. Huge chunks of the world don't have broadband. They might watch it on their phones on DVB-H though.

For the most part, over the next five years linear broadcast distribution is going to be important. It also serves as an anchor and a gateway to the web platform.

Keep in mind the 60+ block is a huge voting block. Who is going to tell them Ron Paul is the only one who will protect their pensions?

[AceNZ]

The internet is the present and the future. Its the TV that is trying to get with the times and mesh into the internet. TV is the standby for the 60+ year old crowd. Its not really that economically feasible to go after them.

Look, RP had a huge and powerful presence on the Internet, and still lost hugely. The MSM, and TV in particular, is the single most influential communications medium, and will remain so for at least another generation. When we have CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox and the like saying our ideas are flawed--not just directly, but indirectly with every guest, host, topic and sneer, guess what? Unless we have a powerful way to talk back in the same medium and defend ourselves, we lose.

We need two main things: content, meaning original journalism/reporting, punditry and documentaries with a pro-liberty perspective, and distribution. I'm all for having Internet distribution as a secondary, but we need a broadcast/push medium as a primary or we will never have the reach we need.

In addition, I think it is economically feasible to compete with the MSM. It was possible 4 yrs ago, and the situation is even better today. They want people to believe otherwise to discourage competition, but the technology is changing in broadcast as fast as it is everywhere else; it's possible to get much more done today with much less. Also, the MSM business model will ultimately be a huge handicap for them. We can be much more agile and audience/topic responsive than they could ever be.

[Stellwagen]

I affirm the reasoning for TV. Count me in.

I will say, if we could have TV, but also free internet streaming that would be perfect. Does having a free stream decrease TV revenue from commercials?

[idiom]

I affirm the reasoning for TV. Count me in.

I will say, if we could have TV, but also free internet streaming that would be perfect. Does having a free stream decrease TV revenue from commercials?

Somebody has to pay for the stream. One just inserts ads on the stream. Its more granular in its ratings data so it can actually be more attractive to advertisers.

However, you would ideally work to have the entire station commercial free. You get the ISP's and the cable companies to provide the bandwidth, and they offer you channel as a competitive advantage.

[Sentinelrv]

I've been waiting for something like this to take shape ever since Ron ran in 07-08 and I came to the realization about how full of crap the MSM was. This idea can be compared to what we're doing right now to the Republican Party. Don't like the way the GOP votes? Become the GOP and change the voting. Don't like the mainstream media propaganda? Become the media and create liberty based propaganda, (aka TRUTH).

Look how much progress we made taking over the GOP with the entire media against us. Now imagine how much faster we could do it with a major media network behind us. This is something that could change the entire world. I'm just afraid of the network getting co-opted. How would you prevent that from happening? And also, is this something that could gain traction very quickly, as in before the next presidential election? How long did it take CNN or FOX to get huge?

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Just a thought. Israel Anderson of Ron Paul Flix is from New Zealand. Is he currently residing in NZ? Because if he is, he would make a great host for this potential project.

[idiom]

CNN took about 10 years, Fox 7.

I think we could get pretty big faster than through use of a few key gimmicks/advantages, like serious global reach, more rapid response, and 3D. The systems to compete with the majors cheaply didn't exist even two years ago. In fact they are barely out of Beta now, but I proved out most of the work flow at Fiji's state broadcaster, and again in Brisbane.

This could go big. It could go big now. Its important not to focus too much on the personalities. Changing the content of the news reports is more subtle and a lot more powerful.

[AceNZ]

I'm just afraid of the network getting co-opted. How would you prevent that from happening?

I agree that this is an important issue, and it's one I've given considerable thought. I'm confident it can be done. The details are better left for a more private forum at this stage, but at a high-level, the answer is to build an appropriate set of values into the company from the beginning, at all levels.


And also, is this something that could gain traction very quickly, as in before the next presidential election?

I agree with idiom, and would add that money plays a significant role in the achievable growth rate--which, in turn, means that quality execution is crucial from Day One.

[Muwahid]

Isn't this what "nextnewsnetwork" is trying to do already?

[AceNZ]

I'd like to start building a list of people who are interested in helping in some way. If you have something to offer, whether it's time, skills, money, equipment, referrals, contacts, content creation or editing, etc, or if you're interested in helping to tackle one of the early tasks mentioned in this thread, please send me a PM and provide a brief summary. Also include your email address. When we reach critical mass, I'll contact you.


I will say, if we could have TV, but also free internet streaming that would be perfect.

Free is good to a point. However, revenue in the early days will be important if we're going to survive. Even if we can negotiate free hosting and bandwidth, we should draw a careful line here. One possibility in the medium term is free access to a few things all the time, to everything for a 30 day trial, and then one or more levels of paid subscriptions for ongoing full access. Later, we could add variants with more/less/different advertising vs. price.

Early on, I would expect to offer more things for free to attract subscribers, and then move to paid subscriptions as things mature.

[AceNZ]

Isn't this what "nextnewsnetwork" is trying to do already?

"A 24 hr news network whose sole purpose is securing America's freedom." I don't think that's what we want or need. The founder on their website sounds unpleasant and disgruntled. I imagine some people might be attracted to that presentation and message, but not me.

One of the key, foundational things here is that Ideas Matter. I hope we've all learned the lesson by now that elections can't be won just by putting a good candidate up. Ideas drive society; it's those ideas that determine who they elect. Even a perfect candidate won't be elected if the right ideas aren't there.

So the Big Goal is to educate--to teach and demonstrate what Liberty looks like, why it's important, what it really means to lose it, and how it's being taken from you on an almost daily basis. In addition, what does Truth sound like on the air? What's really happening in the world?

The goal is not to preach--which is what the MSM does--but to inform. We can't beat them at their game; we have to set our own rules. We should try to stay positive, upbeat. Show how government and the MSM use fear, without going that route ourselves. Treat the audience like adults who are capable of reason, not children who need to be coerced "for their own good".

Also, as discussed earlier in the thread, I think we should start internationally, and then go domestic. Erosion of liberty is really a worldwide problem, and 80% or more of the issues that apply internationally also apply domestically.

[idiom]

A lifetime ago I worked with religious broadcasters. The big gold wigs and the endless telethons.

I had an idea to radically change Christian television. Basically form a global network of channels (these already exist to share content) and have each cover its time zone in prime-time for an hour a day then hand off.

The content is global news but largely from a humanitarian perspective. You use the networks of churches to gather on the ground information during disasters and wars, then you come back to these people on the ground for follow up stories every month for a year later.

Every-time something is happening on screen you provide contact and donation information to help that cause. Then later you get to see where the money went, or who showed up to help.

It didn't gain traction unfortunately, but it would be so much better than golden talking heads.

[Sentinelrv]

Are you guys taking the discussion of this off-site or will it remain here? I'm interested in following its progress.

[idiom]

No, the conversation just came to a screeching halt. I was finding it inspirational.

[AceNZ]

Are you guys taking the discussion of this off-site or will it remain here? I'm interested in following its progress.

If/when it develops critical mass, it won't be appropriate to discuss some things in an open forum, and we'll need to move the discussion off-site. Hasn't happened yet.


No, the conversation just came to a screeching halt. I was finding it inspirational.

Me too. It might be time to reboot this thread shortly, with a different focus.