 20 minutes left. I thought I'd open it up to questions. We'll start back here. Hi, Lisa Adkins with the Bluegrass Community Foundation in Lexington, Kentucky. I know I'm not the only community foundation with McClatchy newspapers in the room that aren't in California. And so the question is, we've already co-funded a report for America Reporter. We've just opened up a fiscal sponsorship fund with the Herald leader. But I can't imagine in our stripped-down newsroom that our general manager of our newspaper is now going to be doing fundraising full time. And so what's the infrastructure in McClatchy to help the papers that are in Lexington, Kentucky, or in the Chattahoochee Valley in Georgia? And I would just very strongly echo that it's one thing for community foundations to understand this. And I think especially those of us that have been coming to this conference year after year really do, but I will echo that donors do not. And Lexington is a university city. It's midsize. It has highly educated, sophisticated people. And they do not understand this issue at all. As I have made pitches to fund holders and philanthropists, they just don't get why they should be supporting a for-profit newspaper. And then I'll just say in the McClatchy case, the bankruptcy makes it more complicated. So to my guess, primary question is, are there people like you in McClatchy that are working with these smaller markets? And who do we connect with? Thank you. First, thank you for your support of local journalism in Lexington. I know Peter is just wearing one hat as the GM. And yet in McClatchy, we tend to wear a lot of hats. And as such, yes, I've been asked to take a look at how we might support this effort more broadly. We have only been talking about this type of relationship with community foundations from a more strategic standpoint, I would say for the last maybe eight months. And it's very new for us. And one of my concerns is that, and this is a personal concern, so forgive me, is that are we going to be able to do this? Are we good enough at this? Do we have the bandwidth? Nico asked if we had the resources that we needed or what keeps us up at night or where our biggest challenges are. And like Frazier, I wake up in the morning and I'm like, oh my gosh, all those things, right? And so I'm not directly answering your question because our resources are not as they should be for this effort at this point in time. I think as a company, we're going to have to determine as we emerge from bankruptcy what our commitment not to the local journalism or even to this effort is because I think as you know, there are people in the community who want to help. There are plenty of people that we still have to reach and educate and bring along if we can. But what our structure looks like with respect to this effort. And I think that's every day we see more promising signs with respect to the conversations that have occurred here and elsewhere. We haven't yet made firm plans with respect to how we can best structure ourselves to meet the opportunity. However, I would love to continue the conversation. I'm in touch with Peter on a regular basis. We talk every week, so let me know. I want to ask this as a follow-up to Sharon. You know, your role at the New York Times, Vice President Philanthropy, is that important attempt to try and institutionalize this inside the company? And are you aware of other companies that are considering or have created a similar institutional role focused on philanthropy? Yeah, so mine is a newly created position and it is to institutionalize, have someone full-time focused on it. I do think that makes a big difference every time that we have added. I think you can probably launch one initiative with existing resources, which is what we did. But once you get into more, or if you want to replicate, you're going to need a full-time person, which is what the Seattle Times did. And then I've seen, like, once we added another director on my team, then we're able to launch a whole other thing, right? But I don't think that one thing is going to be constrained. Like, that one editor is going to be constrained from launching the thing that's been started. If it's just one. Was that the question? Okay. I'm Annie with the Lundfest Institute, and we're the fundraising arm for the Philadelphia Inquirer, among many other things. And so we have a team of people fundraising for the Inquirer. A newspaper wouldn't think twice about adding somebody into the advertising sales team if they were clear that it would generate revenue, needed revenue for the news outlet. Why the business side of newspapers think any differently about philanthropy and fundraising is beyond me. It's you need people, you need to spend money to make money, and you need to make that commitment. And I think if community foundations are really committed to their local news outlets and want to support them, a great way to start that is to give these newspapers capacity-building grants so they have a three-year runway and enough money to hire the staff and the resources they need to start a fundraising program. Just to make you sense. Any comment from the panel? I'll just say Annie is a great resource, like she has a long background with United Way and Lundfest Institute is a learning resource for journalism and philanthropy. I'm Taylor Batten. I'm the managing editor at the Charlotte Observer, and we're starting these conversations in Charlotte. And I'm interested in what the most common and specific objection you all hear from funders, and how do you address it? Well, now that I work at The New York Times, I will say the thing that is, I think, the unspoken question is why is The New York Times that it's like five million digital subscribers in this space. And for us, our explanation is simply that ten years ago The New York Times was actually not that confident in its ability to remain an independent publication, and it's spent ten years building up a digital business that's based on selling subscriptions and selling advertising to the audiences among those subscribers. Now, that actually is a very specific type of journalism that will drive digital subscriptions and create audiences that digital advertisers want to reach. There is journalism that drives social impact that improves the world that is needed for the future of the globe and America that doesn't fit that. So one example initiative I'm developing is around rural America, and how could we elevate the issues of rural America to the national decision makers and influencers who read The New York Times. There are not subscribers in rural America who, enough of them, who want to subscribe to The New York Times to make it worth it for us to use our money to do that. There are not advertisers who want to reach people in rural America through The New York Times to make that worthwhile. So I think the ability to explain that, why we're in this space, is actually a really common spoken and unspoken question. I'd say there are the people who hate the comments section, and they will not give money until we change the platform, and that is very common, and there's nothing to be done about that. They are not a happy group. There are people who don't like our coverage, and who feel as though our coverage is too X or too Y. I mean, it's usually about the LDS church. We're either too pro-church. We cover it too much, or we're too anti-church. We do too much. So there are people who come down on the side of our coverage. Now, there are also subscribers, so I'm like, well, clearly you read it. Do you want it to continue? That's probably, from a local point of view, that's what we hear the most objection around. We also, I think, some of these relationships with donors are really more transactional in nature than donation nature. There are people who use their philanthropy to advertise their business. So they use it out of their marketing, or they come at it from a much more... Their donations are much more tied to the success of their business, corporate-wise. And so we don't necessarily fit well into that kind of giving. And we have been turned down by somebody I thought would support us because I don't think we offered a good underwriting opportunity. So we're going to come back to them with more of a... something that appeals more to the more transactional nature of their philanthropy. I would say, though, that getting rejected or being turned down is a way of life if you're raising money. And it is just a step in developing the relationship. I mean, some people really will never give to the Tribune, and I understand that. And if they say it clearly, I won't bug them again. But a no is really just a... It's not really a no. Not yet. It's a not yet. It's a what else can I do? And it's not as though we're go dogs go, and we come back with a different hat the next week, and then do you like this hat? Do you like this hat? But because I do think that there's a tendency... You don't want your need to... I mean, you need to come first. What you want to do is most important, and a donor should be able to meet you where that need is. Otherwise, they're probably not the right kind of donor. But for general operating, et cetera, they're just asking them to support democracy. And that's an ask that people have a hard time saying no to. They may say no to at a big level, but they could give you a little bit. I also think it's really important to research heavily the people that you ask money for. So I've taken a number of meetings here, and I'm not asking for things that I don't think are in the likelihood or the interest area of anybody I'm talking to. I know what they've given to. I know how much they've given. I'm asking for the right amount for the right purpose. And you're helping them do their job that way. You know, you're making it easier for them. So I would just really encourage you, research, research, research. And if there's a person in town... And accept rejection. I would just say, like, there might be someone who can be your influencer, right, in Charlotte, who is that person, or who are those few people who know everyone and know which potholes you should avoid when you walk into that conversation. That's been really helpful for us. That you take with you, so, you know, et cetera. And, you know, Frazier, you raised something which I'm curious about all of you, you know. Is there any concern about philanthropy cannibalizing existing advertising? I know in the Seattle Times case, some of those labs had big corporate sponsors. And I just wondered about that dynamic. Over time, what we found was that working with corporate sponsors allowed us and our whole company, including advertising, to build a first-party relationship with a large company, whether it's Alaska Airlines or Starbucks. Because typically, the advertising department at a paper the size of the Seattle Times can only access their advertising budgets through buyers, right? So they don't ever have a chance. Certain parties, through agencies or other, yeah. Yeah, so they actually don't have a chance to pitch a bigger project. But, you know, sometimes we would go together to a meeting about here's a way that you can improve, like, support your community through Project Homeless and then, by the way, like, then advertising would talk about this is another way that you could get your message out there. Tom? Yes, it's on. I'm Tom Rosenstiel. I spent 16 years at the Pew Research Center. And at Pew, there was a political side, the Pew Charitable Trust, we had a lot of lobbying and saving fish and sharks and islands and things like that. And then we had the Pew Research Center, which did pure research. We were all told to go out and fundraise. And our message at the Pew Research Center is, better information makes a better society. Over the nine years we were charged with that, we raised maybe $10 million. And on the political side, they raised $450 million. Our experience was that people, high-end donors, want to solve problems that they've identified that they care about. And whether it's Gates or Buffett or whatever, if journalism is a means to that end, but these are people that, they are not journalists. And only a small percentage of people really resonated to the idea of journalism saves democracy. So we ended up having to put a zone around, okay, this is your area, you're interested in this. The ground rules for us to do the research there is going to be X, Y, and Z. You know, you can't put your hand on the scale, et cetera, et cetera. But it took us a long time to realize that our religion about better society with more facts was a relatively small cult among the people that we were dealing with. Tom also has a great white paper on fundraising and journalism at the American Press Institute. I highly recommend taking a look at it. Great piece. It's the American Press Institute, and they have a white paper, and it's about philanthropy, the intersection of philanthropy and journalism. I don't remember the name, but... It's very good. Hi, I'm Susan Edelman. I'm from a community foundation in Northeast Florida, and I'm interested in if you set up a fund or attract donors to help a newspaper that is not a McClatchy newspaper, but is a very large behemoth. What keeps them from supplanting... Fine, we'll have an education lab, and then the reporter that was barely covering education, they just cut that person. What kind of guidelines, what kind of running room do you have in that kind of aspect? When we first set up education lab, part of the agreement said that we would not cut our existing education resources. You can demand that. I just want to say one other thing about who drives the... Who makes the decision? I don't go off and ask for funding for things that the editor of our paper doesn't tell us she needs. I just can't come in and say, let's cover the X, because I have a donor who wants it. That's a conversation we have with the leadership, but I'm not going rogue, and then she can come to me and say we really need to increase our coverage for education. Can you maybe talk about a way to do that with funders? I think that as much as important is to be clear with the grant makers, it's also important to be led by the mission of the organization and make sure that you are doing what is important for your community, not what a donor potentially drives. Retemberg with Detroit. I agree with Tom. We're finding, differentiating ourselves around environment and Great Lakes education, arts and culture generically for a public television station to suggest journalism is a little... It's hard for the funder to understand that. The other thing is, and this is the good news, but also the challenge, every single place we're going, we're being asked about diversity. I love your plan. Bring your staff. Showing up pale male and stale, maybe not your best move at this point, but the very people you're asking for funding for are looking to solve a larger problem, and they've got dozens of people saying I am the emerging voice in Detroit. Incorporating those partnerships, you have to be incredibly comfortable with this issue and committed to it from the very top of the organization. I'm with Community Foundation, Tampa Bay and pointers in our area, and we're so proud of that. Can you tell me just what size endowment is necessary to feel comfortable that there's going to be a flow of capital, and I'm sure that's a range, depending on the costs. And then the other question is, how involved does the Community Foundation staff get in the fundraising? I'll jump in on that one just quickly. There are... Your endowment probably looks a heck of a lot different than, say, an endowment for a single reporter, right? And if you work for a Community Foundation, you know what your returns are on a sum of money, right? And if it costs 60,000 to 70,000, depending on the community to support a reporter, you can do the math on what a fellow shipper or an endowment, excuse me, would look like for that, right? If it's two reporters, you know, you can... We could figure out what that would be. 2.5 million would get you two reporters on an annual basis in any community. The lab models are funded over years, right? And so that's not an endowment. That's a for, you know, one year it costs $300,000 to operate a four-person lab, that's included. To answer your question about Community Foundations, many Community Foundations are probably about as well-resourced as a newsroom, right? In that, you know, you do a lot and you handle a lot of volume and you have a lot of relationships to maintain. And so we have made no asks of any Community Foundation yet to help us with that fundraising. Have they connected with us with people we should be talking to? But we haven't engaged them in doing that work with us. We've said, so far, we're going to do this. And we're going to see if we can do this because we think it's important that we help people understand that we need a deeper and more authentic relationship with our community moving forward. And that's on us. Yep. So, hi. Vince Daly, Executive Director of Media Impact Funders. I'm going to talk about the principles of Community Foundations, but I also just want to mention that we're going to be gathering our Journalism Funders meeting, which is an annual thing that we do in the fall. It's the first week of October in Philadelphia, where I think we can certainly draw on our friends at the Lenfist Institute to carry forward where they have a major sort of hybrid, commercial, and economic impact. My question is relating to the different aspects of Community Foundations, both the discretionary grantmaking of the sort of professional program staff versus the contributions through the donor-advised funds. Is there a much greater opportunity to draw on those donor-advised funds? We've seen that there's a lot of resources flowing already. We've seen a near-look at journalism grantmaking. We're looking at $1 billion in grants. Over $100 million of that is from Community Foundations. We think that's probably not program staff-driven discretionary dollars. It's probably more daffs. And so what can you offer in terms of guidance of how to work with those donors as well? Before we answer that, we'll do more questions in a rapid round. They will answer all of them. Is there a microphone back here? Yeah, just give the question quick. We're going to do... Don't want to be the keep us from lunch guy. When it comes to funders and you look at them on an advocacy or ideological spectrum, is there a point where they get too far out to be considered and how do you kind of know where that place is? Does that make any sense? I'm with the AP. A not-for-profit, but not a non-profit. I'm wondering about internal messaging with staff about what you all are doing. Concerns that arise about certain areas being more funded than others. Anything that has to do with those kinds of internal communications. So the three questions are one, donor-advised funds and the challenges and opportunities working with them. Two, are there any political leanings too far one way or the other that would affect? Is there anyone who will not take money from philanthropically? Third, what about inside the news room and concerns about some people getting more money than others? Well, we won't take money from funders like if you're running for president and you have a philanthropy. Sometimes we'll probably not be talking to you at this point. So that would be one example. Also, a funder is so dominant in that sphere we probably wouldn't talk to them. There are just certain funders that are basically their money is driving the entire agenda for an entire sector. So taking funding from them to cover that would be an issue for us. I'll just talk briefly about talking to employees. I think when we became a non-profit oh, happy days are here again. Money will flow. We'll all get raises in a big news room. This is a slog. It's difficult work. And I think we have tempered we certainly are optimistic we will remain optimistic but we've had to temper some kind of initial euphoria. No anonymous donors. Okay. Thank you very much all of you for your time and let's give our panel a big round of applause for their leadership.