APPENDIX J: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT – MATT LONG

00:02 Valerie: Go ahead and start off by telling me your name and how long you've been working at the Kauffman Foundation.

00:07 M: I'm Matthew Long. Just usually go by Matt Long. And I have been here 25 years.

00:16 V: And then go ahead and tell me about what kind of work you do here either for the editorial team or across any other departments you might work with.

00:22 M: I do a lot of, I mean, primarily video production work. Audio/visual support on some projects. Live event support. Video production work. It's spanned anything from we're trying to produce programmatic overview pieces about different projects that the foundation is involved in or our grantees. That's how we used to do a lot more of that kind of work, that kind of explainer pieces. And it's transitioned probably in recent history to more of an editorial kind of. We still do some of the 'we're going to talk about what this program is.' But it's through a different lens as far as the documentary type or short-form documentary type pieces. But the bread and butter is still people sitting on camera talking about what they do and how they've been impacted by a program or a project or something that the foundation supports.

01:21 V: Cool. And then, you know, you kind of mentioned before we got started that you really didn't have a whole lot of involvement with the Atlantic 57 work, but from your own understanding, can you give me an overview of how we define this new editorial approach?

01:43 M: It's not going to be a good understanding because honestly I don't think I have a deep understanding of it. I think the focus on certain coverage areas has obviously

become critical in terms of any project that we begin work on. It's like, 'Well, who are we.' You know, much more clearly define up front who is. I mean we always asked who your audience was, but in terms of actually the foundation identifying very specific audiences and tailoring communications efforts to those people is more than we've ever done before. Usually it's like we're going to do a video that's going to explain City Year.

And it's like, 'Well, who's it for?' And it's like, 'Well, it's for potential new recruits for City Year.' Well, as we think about even doing a City Year video now, the way it's changed, we're just not going into it with the idea that we're doing a City Year video to promote City Year as it's getting off the ground. Or they have a gala coming up, and so we're going to produce a video to promote kind of the next phase of City Year.

02:50 M: Now it's, 'Well, how can it benefit us as an organization? What are the stories we want to tell about City Year?' And that's been much different. Even the other day. So, we had done a piece about the grooming project and Natasha Kirsch a couple years ago as just one of those kind of entrepreneur stories and like what barriers they face. We've gone through various, I don't want to call them fits and starts, but we've gone through various campaigns, I guess. Like Zero Barriers, you don't necessarily hear as much about

Zero Barriers, but I think when we started with the Natasha Kirsch piece it was like, what kind of barriers was she facing? Or the videos we did with Nation Swell. It started off kind of with what barriers were entrepreneurs facing.

03:41 M: So, the grooming project came back to us recently and asked. They said basically they were going to have a gala later this year and wondered if there was any possibility of — they called it a partnership — if there was an opportunity for us to work together again to produce a piece that they could show at their gala. Keith and I met with Natasha just last Wednesday I think it was. And we were taking the same approach that we did with City Year. It was like, well, we're not just going to say, 'Yeah we're going to.' I mean we're not in the business of doing videos to promote entrepreneur organizations.

We want to tell their stories of what struggles they've had or how they've found success or how we can help other entrepreneurs along the way.

04:27 M: And with Natasha it was what follow-up story can we tell? The first one was fairly successful for us. It was like, what follow-up story could we potentially tell that would benefit both the grooming project for their needs into wanting to produce

something for their gala, but then also a story that we would want to tell. The first video was a lot more about Natasha and the grooming project. How she got that off the ground and how it was helping people. And the next phase that we will probably tell is less about her. We'll ask her to get us up to speed on things. But it's more about what some of the graduates of her program what they're doing. Like, there's been growth. They're starting a salon out in I think in Lee's Summit, and a couple of the graduates of the grooming project will be running that salon. And they eventually want to start their own company, too. So, it's like, that's going to be the next version of the story.

05:26 M: This is a really roundabout way to say, we used to probably produce videos because we needed a programmatic explainer piece on a certain program. And now it's like as we look at pieces that we might produce, it's what editorial lens can we look at it that will benefit our storytelling efforts? But maybe work for them as well, which is what we're doing with City Year and what we're doing with Natasha and the grooming project.

05:56 V: So, it's just aligning closer to strategies and closer to kind of what we're doing as opposed to just putting information out there in support of a program.

M: Yes. Yeah.

06:06 M: And I didn't do a good job of answering your actual question, but I can say that there's a lot more intentionality to who we're thinking about, who we're going to produce these pieces for. But in some respects, I feel like we could probably rationalize any approach. Not any approach. I think with the City Year piece, for instance, we had a couple different options. Like Keith and Julie were kind of fixed on one specific option.

Miles really wanted to put it back to the City Year people as a couple different

approaches that we might take, even though Keith and Julie were really interested in a certain approach.

06:50 M: So, there's still that give and take, that push and pull between what the Miles and the Kims want to do or need to do just to fulfill if there's a communications need for a certain event or whatever versus having an editorial look at it, approach to it.

07:10 V: I guess that's actually a really good example for me of just understanding what kind of "story-first" means. That's kind of been a phrase that I've heard thrown around.

Not everyone is quite clear on what that means. But I think that's a good example where we're trying to say, 'We want the story to lead this and help illuminate that information and that purpose of why you're doing this.' And really tell that story instead of just an explainer of like 'this happens.'

07:38 M: 'This is the grooming project.' Yeah and that was... When we met with Natasha, it was really an interesting dynamic because it was not just Natasha, but Becky Blades, I think she used to run a company Blades & Associates, you know, PR and all this stuff.

She's great and she's well-connected. She knows Larry. She knows people, so it's like she's there, too. And she's just there trying to make sure that they, you know, are we going to commit to doing a video for the grooming project. But it was an interesting dynamic because you could tell that she wanted to be involved or provide direction. And she even said, 'I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth.' Because she realized if we did it, we'd be doing it at no cost to them. But under our own, like what's our lens going to be on this story? And our lens primarily is telling the next part of the story with an entrepreneur who's created more entrepreneurs. You know, they want to start their own companies now as opposed to just going and getting footage of construction of the salon.

Which Keith was like, 'Yeah, we're not really interested in that. If you want to do that, it's kind of on you to do that. Not us.' Anyway.

08:50 V: Well, with that being said, I guess what would you say are the primary goals of being more intentional with that work? What is maybe the reasoning for thinking more clearly in that direction?

09:14 M: I guess just to know better what our audiences want more of. What kind of stories they want to hear. You, what gets them interested in the work we're doing. If we're trying to rally more people to get behind and understand the work they're doing and almost how they can see themselves in it, you have to hook them somehow. You have to get their interest. And I honestly can't remember all the coverage areas. I know they come up any time we're starting a new project. But we're not as interested as much now in the...what's the one category? It's the people that we kind of — I don't want to say abandoned but —

V: The inquirers?

10:00 M: The inquirers. Was it inquirers?

10:06 V: I think it was inquirers because that's supposed to be the folks that are I guess a little more skeptical of the role that philanthropy plays in making forward progress in these areas.

10:16 M: So, I guess understanding better what kind of stories that they want to tell or want to hear and get them interested in our work more. Whereas in the past it's been a lot of, 'If you produce it, they will come.' You know, create it, put it out there and expect people to come to us as opposed to actually trying to make a concerted effort to produce a piece that someone would be interested in and want to know more about the work that we do and maybe work along with us somehow.

V: Yeah.

M: Maybe.

10:52 V: No, I think that makes sense. That kind of leads into some of my next few questions just trying to understand how thinking about audiences has changed through this new approach. I think you started to touch on that in saying that, we're thinking more intentionally, and we are concerned with what our audiences want to hear. And, you know, what they're interested in. And we kind of mentioned coverage areas, but I guess were you part of the discussions for the typologies with Atlantic 57? Because I know that was a part of more of the earlier work. I don't know if that was included as much in their last on-site visit.

11:25 M: I think I sat in on the meetings. Yeah. The early. But there was even an iteration before that before Atlantic 57 came on where it was. I can't remember what they called them. Did they call them typologies or if there was...

V: I know there was personas at one point...

11:40 M: Personas. For a while, we went down this road of personas and then that morphed into when Atlantic 57 came on. I think it morphed into the typologies. I was there for that, but I don't recall any of the typologies.

[Laughter]

11:59 V: That's OK. Do you have a sense of what that means, though? How are the typologies different than maybe personas?

12:08 M: No, I don't. Well, I felt like it was more specified. The personas were more general buckets of people that fit in certain categories. The typologies...I think they gave more specific examples of individuals that would fit within a certain typology.

12:32 V: OK. Yeah. I know with the persona work they talked more about demographic information rather than...and somewhat roles. But I think the typologies...They talked a lot about motivation, a lot about interests.

12:47 M: And I'm not sure really how much that furthered our efforts on the personas thing. I feel like the work with typologies maybe helped get us to where we are as far as

the coverage areas. But the personas felt like it kind of was a start and stop kind of thing.

I don't know that we went...

V: Yeah.

13:10 V: Do you feel or has there been any change in the audiences we want to reach through this approach? Or do you feel like it's still kind of the same people?

13:20 M: I think it's largely the same people just I think we have a better...I think we've defined them better. And we have a better understanding of who they are, and we can look at specific people. Plus, with Chris' work we'll be able to identify individuals that would fit in certain typologies. I think that's part of what he's done that's helped us identify individuals better.

13:48 V: Yeah. Yeah. I guess knowing that with the typologies and better understanding audiences, we're trying to communicate more clearly. Do you feel there are certain values we're trying to communicate now that we weren't as clear with before? You kind of mentioned that we're trying to align things better with strategy, so I just want to get a little bit deeper there.

14:17 M: Repeat the question again.

14:18 V: So, knowing that we're trying to align some of our work more closely with strategy and also with audiences want to know, do you feel there are certain values that we're trying to communicate right now? Whether that be values, or just messages and ideas.

14:40 M: The uncommon approach to things seems to be a dominant value. I'm not sure how that actually manifests itself. I know we talk a lot about being uncommon or taking an uncommon approach to philanthropy. And having it come from Mr. Kauffman's uncommon approach to his business and philanthropy as well. So that seems to be the overarching message. And I think that for me that particularly resonates in education and some of the different work that we're trying to do in education, especially here recently.

We used to be a little more timid on the education side as far as sharing what we believed on certain things. We would do an interview with Aaron, and if we wanted to create a sketchbook about his view on education or how we should change education. It seemed like there was a lot of hemming and hawing about what we should put into that.

15:59 M: It seems like with Rethink Ed last year, and this is again all through my lens — just what I've seen. But from Rethink Ed last year and really coming out and making a stand as far as like this is what we believe in. But in the past it felt like we didn't necessarily do that. We were always kind of cautious. I mean you're talking about education and young people. It's like you've got to have you act together before you get out there. And for Aaron to get out there on stage and talk about how the normal degree is not working now for a lot of kids. And we need to get them better prepared for the

workforce and how do we do that. That to me I think probably... We probably lost a lot of people, but I think the way they look at it now it's like that's OK.

16:45 M: There's certain people that we're never going to get on board with where we're going with this whole being ready, being educated for the world today.

17:00 M: I don't know that I always understand how our values with entrepreneurship are. I don't know. It sometimes feels like we're just kind of reinforcing just what's already out there in terms of entrepreneurship. It's kind of hard to. I mean entrepreneurship is such a well-respected, well-received. I mean, it seems like everyone's kind of behind it. I mean what's the downside of being an entrepreneur? I don't know what we're really doing that's radically different or uncommon about our entrepreneurship stance on things necessarily. But in terms of values of supporting entrepreneurs, trying to get them to be advocates for themselves. And then now, it seems like we change. There was Zero Barriers and whatever there was between Zero Barriers and now Grow Your Own. It's like it takes a new approach every year. It seems like there's kind of a different theme.

18:20 V: Yeah it's been an interesting just in the time I've been here to see kind of that transition and people are a little bit tense about that. But it's been interesting talking to you and Keith and Matt Pozel, who have been here a while, and there's kind of a distinct shift from I guess where things were when we were more of a research institution to now some of those strategies and some of those things are becoming a little more clear. Yeah.

18:48 M: We used to have a lot more even before that. The research presence, obviously, we had a huge research department. But even before that we had a lot of operating programs. It wasn't just FastTrac and 1 Million Cups, which were kind of like these, you know, tentpole programs that we have now. There used to be a whole slate. We had programming for young entrepreneurs and there was a lot of different programs we were running. And then also obviously the Founders School thing, Global Scholars. We had a lot of different — we piloted. You know the whole Kauffman Labs area was set up. It was originally supposed to be a little incubator of sorts, and they ended up doing some different...They had like an education fellows group that came in — or not education.

There was an education entrepreneurship cohort that went through there. But then there was also like a bio kind of like a group that was more interested in biotech and things like that that came through. There was a lot more active programs than it seems like than there are now. It's definitely been full of transitions.

20:04 M: But even in the time that you've been here, yeah. Just thematically it's changed a couple times.

20:04 M: But even in the time that you've been here, yeah. Just thematically it's changed a couple times.