APPENDIX K: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT – KEITH MAYS

00:01 Valerie: Cool. So, go ahead and start off by telling me your name and how long you've been working here.

00:09 Keith: My name is Keith Mays. I've just passed my 20th anniversary at the foundation.

00:14 V: Yeah. Congratulations. You and Pozel both are just true legends at Kauffman.

00:20 K: Ah. Matt Long has been here longer than either of us.

V: Really?

K: Yeah

V: I didn't know that. I knew he had been here a while, but I didn't know longer than that.

K: Yeah.

00:30 V: It's cool to get to talk to a range of people. Like, I talked to Katey who is probably one of our newer members. She's only been here about a year now, and to get also 20 years of history for this has been really neat.

K: Sure.

00:41 V: So, tell me a little bit about what kind of work you do here for the editorial team as well as any other departments you might work in tandem with.

00:51 K: Well, I mean my title is editorial director, but I think there's basically two components. There's the editorial side and then there's the digital strategy side. So, the editorial work is relatively new, certainly as kind of a main area of what I'm doing. It's only been a year and a half, or two years I guess focusing on that. That's generating content around the foundation's interest areas to hopefully better engage with our audiences.

01:41 K: And then the other side is really just about how best we use the various platforms and tools that are available to us. Kauffman.org, social channels, email. That sort of thing. So, that's really more of a... it’s like search engine optimization, user experience on the website, all that kind of stuff. So, those are the two kind of basic areas in that work. I certainly have conversations with people around the foundation. You know, specific things come up.

V: Sure

02:25 V: So, you said the editorial side of this is only about 1 to 2 years old. How has that been kind of a transition from where things were before?

02:33 K: Yeah. So, I'll use, say, 10 years ago as a "before" starting place. The formula then would have been fairly typical corporate communications in that we would have a new program or a new piece of research or an event or whatever, and we would issue a news release and then there would be a media relations effort. And so, that was sort of our primary way of connecting to the outside world.

03:24 And I think the transition that we've made really goes parallel to changes in the media environment overall. So, it's not to say that we don't use some of those tactics still.

We use a PR agency for media outreach, but very selectively instead of as the default way that we can get our messages out. So, in the changes in the media environment, the kind of gap that has come about in some ways and also sort of a change in philosophy and the foundation, which I can come back to, it just sort of made sense for us to really prepare and put out there — out in the world — our own content. Instead of wholly relying on other people to write stories that was hopefully kind of furthered our causes and that constant rolling of the dice in a way. But I think, one of the other parallels we were really known in the 2000s as a kind of research, think tank kind of organization in that way that kind of an organization operates or operated was we would come up with this important work. And it was sort of groundbreaking. I don't want to leave that out.

And it was very sort of ivory tower situation where it was like, 'Here's this important thing. Drop it out of the ivory tower. You're welcome.' And that was sort of the approach.

05:40 K: So, aside from the fact that our board really wanted us to be getting into more actionable research, there was a movement toward realizing that we didn't have the money or the expertise to make the kind of social change that we wanted. So, if we keep everyone at arm's length, a step removed, and kind of do everything through the media, then we wouldn't necessarily be making the kind of authentic connections that we needed in order to do the kind of work that we want to do. So, I think overall, the way that we engage with communities is on a much more personal level now. And that's not even necessarily Public Affairs, that's around the foundation. We know that we really have to kind of rely on our collaborators to help get the work done that we think is important. We know that the amount of money that we have is really a drop in the bucket compared to say, the government, so we have to use that really wisely. So, kind of focusing in more on Public Affairs, it's trying to make sure that we're connecting with the right people and kind of getting them to understand what we're all about and hopefully forming the right kind of partnerships that we need to.

V: Sure

07:30 V: Well, and that kind of touches I guess toward what I understand of this new editorial approach. You're talking about engaging more personally and using kind of a story-first framework to do that. Can you kind of give me an overview of just the timeline of the Atlantic 57 engagement?

07:47 K: Sure. Yeah. Well, I mean we started talking to them in 2017, but didn't really kick off the work with them in earnest until early 2018\. I think it might have been March by the time we met for the first time. So, our first engagement with them took us through, I'd say, September. It was kind of half audience research and half editorial strategy. So, they took us to that point. And so, last fall we felt like, 'That's all really good,' but we felt like our feet weren't really on the ground yet in terms of being able to actually use some of the editorial strategy. And so, we asked for another smaller engagement, which was really focused on really practical things we could be doing. Everything from sort of the formats of our meetings to the whole idea of coverage areas. Really sort of honing in on what it would mean on kind of a day-to-day, month-to-month, quarterly what we should be doing.

09:24 K: And, so that basically took us through I guess January to finish that out.

09:34 V: Cool. Yeah. I think that tracks pretty well. I think I came in right in the middle of the summer when they were kind of in the middle of that audience research phase. I'm just trying to make sure I've got my timeline all correct here.

09:45 V: That being said, tell me a little bit how you would define this new approach. I know we use story-first a lot. What does that really mean to you and how would you say the team is meant to understand that?

09:59 K: Well, I mean I would say overall this is all still a work in progress and that we're still trying to define what a lot of it means. So, it's a unique situation of trying to inject this kind of thinking into a traditional corporate communications organization, as most are. So, I mean I think that it will be unique in any organization to try to say that, 'OK, now we're going to try to have this genuine editorial effort.' It's not content marketing per se. It's not marketing. It really is an attempt to tell real stories that are illuminating the 'why' of why we do our work and why we think certain topics are important.

11:05 K: I mean I think if you look at it as sort of self-contained about what an editorial effort is, it's probably not that different than you might see anywhere else. Since we've been sitting around the campfire, stories are a really effective way to engage with people.

I don't think there's necessarily magic there, and people have been trying to figure out audiences forever. So, I don't know that there's a magic formula here. It's just like, how do you do all of that within an organization like this? And what does that sort of on-going negotiation look like? Of trying to balance sort of talking about our programs directly and kind of boosting those, promoting those versus talking about larger issues that are

important to us as an organization, even if the promotion of ourselves as an organization is not there or is a very downplayed piece.

12:35 K: So, I mean I think that's kind of part of the ongoing education, if you want to call it that, of everyone. Like, seeing the benefit of telling good stories. There's not a direct line to promoting a unique product or whatever it is.

K: Tell me what the question was again? I feel like I wandered around that.

13:06 V: That's OK. I guess, what I really want to touch on and kind of get some clarity on is what does it mean to be "story first"? Obviously, I think everyone on the team agrees that stories are important, but what are we putting that ahead of and what does that really mean?

13:25 K: Well, I think it essentially means that there's a basic mind shift here. Even though we're saying it's story first, really what we're saying — and we play these games all the time and kind of chase our tails — is that it's audience first.

13:45 K: People outside this building aren't necessarily going to be interested in us patting ourselves on the back. That's not an effective way to get our information out there or get our priorities out there. However, people out there as all people are interested in a good story. So, that's just like the basic principle of what an editorial approach needs to be about is find a good story. So, that's sort of part of the ongoing discussion that we have to have, even within Public Affairs. That is, 'Yes, there's an event. We're speaking at it or we're sponsoring at this event. There's important people at this event.' We don't want to do a story about the event. We want to say, 'what are the important themes of it that maybe we'll pursue later?' Or, 'who should we be talking to and about what?'

15:07 K: So, it's not going to do anyone out there in the world a lot of good to say, 'Hey, we had this really cool event, and, by the way, you weren't invited to it. But there were a lot of important people there.'

15:25 K: Really, we have to say, 'OK. What ideas or what conversations were held in that event that really would be of value to people that weren't at the event?' So, it's really just a different sort of perspective than what we might have taken traditionally. I would say even within the time that we've had Currents, we've seen that evolve somewhat where, 'We did a video and it was really nice, tight video and it showed highlights of the event and all that,' but it was really more self-congratulatory than storytelling or that really conveyed important information out to the world. It's really just a change in perspective.

V: Right.

16:29 V: Sure. No, I think that makes sense. And, I think that's been clear in the conversations we've been having now. In talking to Katey about how we covered the EPN convening, she said that was pretty much an event coverage piece. But now looking at the piece we did on the government shutdown and other things, we're starting to think bigger about topics and about things people are interested in rather than just saying, 'this thing is happening.' It's just got a little bit deeper nuance there, and definitely more strong narrative to it.

17:05 V: We started to touch on audiences a little bit. And I do want to spend some time discussing that. So, how, in adopting this new approach how have we started to think

about audiences differently? Or are we considering trying to reach different audiences than we were before?

17:25 K: Yeah, so I think it's all about trying to reach the right people, and that may mean more people. It may mean different people. It's not to exclude any audiences or people out there who we already have. I mean I think we know fairly well that we're

overrepresented in audiences that we created when we were operating a little differently.

When we were a wholly research-oriented organization and that was sort of our lead product. We've just been seeing some sort of natural changes in that. You know, we got a lot of unsubscribes to our email newsletter because we hit on themes that some of our older audiences don't necessarily like.

18:37 K: I think there's a couple different ways of looking at audiences. I don't know that we've totally managed to knit them together. So, looking at audiences in the old way, it's sort of like looking at who's in our email database, who's following us on social media and all that kind of by channel. We could have continued down that path and kept getting better at targeting subgroups within those. And that was really where we were headed.

Really, what we need to be able to do is target leaders of entrepreneurial support

organizations or we need a product that just speaks to teachers — more of those kind of role-based approaches. We do do some of that. That's really more of at the program level when you think about our squid burger basically.

19:53K: So, I mean...I think that is kind of one of the good things that's come out of all the work over the last few years. And that's not necessarily all editorial. It's just been a component of that. But, to think about that there are different channels for different types of audiences. So, in some ways it's easier to think about, 'we want to get a group of teachers in Kansas City to an event. What are the best ways to do that?' And, so there's some real sort of pragmatic approaches to that.

20:34 K: That's still ongoing [inaudible].

V: Yeah

20:40 K: What we're trying to do at a higher level and sort of an uncommon level that we talk about is to think about audiences more broadly by their larger beliefs, their world beliefs. And that's what came out of the Atlantic 57 work. We've ended up with these audience typologies that are helpful in the sense of that any kind of lines you can draw about audiences that allow you to talk about your approach are helpful. I think what we've been challenged with is trying to say, 'We want to target a certain audience in social media, or we want to do a paid campaign to reach futurists or champions.' I'm not really sure yet that there's a one-to-one correlation between the way the tools out there allow you to target people and the way that we're thinking about audience typologies.

22:12 K: I'm not wholly sure where that leaves us, but what I think what it means is we just have a useful tool in thinking about how we frame up our storytelling. We also know what kind of themes we need to keep coming back to. Sort of this future looking, it's just

natural for an organization that's making change that people are interested in the future have that kind of world view. We want that sort of framing of stories or for us to hit those sort of topics, etcetera kind of down the line.

23:07 K: Like I say, it's very useful in how we go about thinking about our stories, how we frame them up, how we approach them. But I'm not as sure yet about how those typologies inform what messages go out through what channels and what channels to target.

V: Yeah.

23:33 V: So, distribution aside, how has the typology framework and all of that affected how you and how some of our team members maybe think about audience in our work as we're maybe planning or even writing stories? Where does that come into play? And how is it maybe different from before?

23:55 K: Well, I think the example for me that is most concrete is we have a few New Entrepreneurial Learning area...we have channels to give entrepreneurs practical information about businesses. So, even though we say practitioners are potentially an audience typology of ours, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to within what we're trying to do in Currents and at our sort of foundation reputation level to do 'Here's five tips for you to manage your time as an entrepreneur.'

24:50 K: So, that's an example of something very specific that we know we don't need to do those kinds of articles.

25:02 V: So, we can focus a little bit more on the editorial side about thinking about futurists and champions and I guess those audiences that would align more with larger thinking and forward thinking rather than, 'I need just practical know-how to be successful right now.'

25:22 K: Yeah. I think there are some practitioner audiences that make sense for us because we don't really have another outlet. So, we'll occasionally do a piece on how we do evaluation as a foundation because we know that there are other people in foundations or nonprofits who are trying to figure out to measure progress and impact, which is difficult to do. So, we get a good response to those.

25:56 K: There is kind of a gray or overlapping type of area where we probably speak to entrepreneurial support organizations a fair amount. I think a lot times those people are probably have both a foot in the practitioner level of trying to run these organizations as well as potentially being a collaborator and being a futurist.

26:24 K: So, the same person can wear different hats.

26:30 V: Yeah, that's kind of the beauty of the typologies to me, I guess. It helps me think about just who I would be trying to connect with and what that person cares about. But

it's not a hard-and-fast, 'I'm only talking to this person.' It's understanding that that person might feel differently as they read and depending on what they're really looking for.

26:51 V: That being said, I do kind of want to shift to talking about just what kinds of topics Kauffman is interested in covering under this new approach. We've kind of talked about how we're thinking a little bit bigger and broader about larger conversations. What

26:51 V: That being said, I do kind of want to shift to talking about just what kinds of topics Kauffman is interested in covering under this new approach. We've kind of talked about how we're thinking a little bit bigger and broader about larger conversations. What