Making Gimli green
Welcome to the brand spanking new Televisionaries blog from Thinkbox. Here you’ll find the latest thinking and discussion about TV and TV advertising and we encourage you to dive in, shoot your mouth off, agree with, disagree with or add to what we’re saying. We want this to become the destination for anyone looking for informed debate about commercial TV.
Perhaps we should start by defining what we mean by television. Of course, it includes the form of TV we all grew up with; linear scheduled channels delivered by a variety of broadcast technologies to increasingly gorgeous screens in front of sofas. But by TV we also mean the professionally-made A/V content that people can now also enjoy via DVD, web, mobile or IPTV technology on any bit of hardware with a screen, from an MP3 player to a Wii. If viewers call it TV, then so do we. And, whatever the platform it is on, the advertising around that content will be seen as TV advertising not just another form of online video.
We quite clearly have an axe to grind that Gimli the dwarf would give up his helmet for, so, if you think something we’re saying is tosh or wide of the mark, feel free to tell us. But please also tell us why you think that, so that we have a chance to give you the evidence that shaped our view. We promise that we will be as open-minded and susceptible to reasoned persuasion as we hope our readers will be in return. Clean and dirty laundry; both will be very public.
I’d like to kick off by asking you what you think we should cover at our upcoming Televisionaries event on 20th November, which is all about the future of TV. What questions would you like our Televisionaries to address? What topics would you like to know more about? What do you think the future holds for TV? We’ve just announced our speaker line-up, which includes luminaries such as Peter Bazalgette, Roisin Donnelly, Andy Duncan, Peter Fincham, Nick Gill and Marie Oldham. They will no doubt be entertaining, inspiring and insightful, but if you could ask them one thing what would it be?
Tags: advertising, Andy Duncan, DVD, forum, IPTV, Marie Oldham, Nick Gill, Peter Bazalgette, Peter Fincham, Roisin Donnelly, television, Televisionaries, thinkbox, TV, weblog
October 18th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I think the next stage is mashed up tv content (legal that is) with advertising mashed into it and then put to music…………
October 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Will we ever see overt product placement in UK TV shows whre a character asks for a brand by name? Eg “Packet of Wrigley’s please” in the lcoal corner shop in Corrie…
October 21st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
but how can segmentation of audiences be a good thing for social cohesion?
October 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
@videopoet: Thanks -and congratulations – for posting our first comment. That stage is already here really; mashed-up TV and TV ads are all over YouTube, set to all sorts of music (though sadly few Baroque examples). They’re one of the ways people use the internet to continue the offline conversations they’ve always had about TV. I guess mash-ups fulfil one relatively niche need, but the vast majority of people want long-form, professionally made narratives. And it’s difficult to do mash-ups if there’s nothing to mash.
@madman: I’m sure the product placement question will come up at the event. We’re all waiting to see whether Ofcom chooses to allow the UK to liberalise these rules according to the new European guidelines. It’s quite hard to argue against some softening when we’re all watching imported TV and films that contain paid for placement, and there’s no suggestion that anyone has been corrupted by it. But we’re talking about modest sums, and we’ve got commercial impacts coming out of our ears -20% more ads are being viewed than 5 years ago – so it’s not being driven by advertiser need.
@jezwaspsrule: Ooh, what a fascinating topic. I sense that you’re yearning for the days when we all sat round watching Sunday Night at the London Palladium, in our dressing gowns, with freshly-washed hair, prior to being packed off to bed. We’re never going to put that genie back in the bottle; viewers have decided they like extra choice and control, both over what they watch and also when they watch it. However, I can give you some reassurance about TV’s role as social glue. Although we are fragmenting how and when we watch TV, we’re not fragmenting what we watch nearly so much. In fact, great TV continues to accumulate audiences through extra channels and new platforms. Channel 4 has some great research showing that, for instance, Shameless in the week following its first transmission is now seen by more people than 5 years ago, through E4, +1 channels, and on-demand services via web or IPTV. And TV continues to be what we talk about most, off- or online, (after friends and family), and what we want to read about. So very much still at the centre of culture. Who are you supporting on The X-Factor then?
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Thansk Tess, I’ll buy that but now looking from a purely commercial level, why on earth do TV companies make such an effort to drive their viewers to their digital channels, which are cheaper, rather than keep them with their more premium main channel? I understand that they would want to keep them within their channel portfolio but I think that they are devaluing their offering (and their profitability) by doing so. Seems a difficult dichotomy with which to wrestle – can it/how can it be resolved?
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Mike Parker ( Channel 4 Sales ) says;
jezwasprule, asks why TV companies make such effort to drive their viewers to digital channels.
Well I guess it’s the same reason why we drive viewers to our website too. The growth of media channels ( broadcast and online ) means that bandwidth is increasingly less scarce and if we don’t occupy it then surely someone else will. In the media market or in fact in many markets standing still is not an option. If you do then you will be overtaken.
The lower cost ( or cost per thousand ) of advertising on digital channels does not necessarily mean that the broadcasters are losing money when viewers are driven to the digital channels. After all the issue is about ROI; digital channels often have a lower cost base to operate, buy programmes with the main channel and often offer another chance to see programmes that were initially broadcast on the main channel. As ROI is about return on investment, the digital channels can be profitable because although the potential return is lower, so is the investment.
The final point I would make is scale. At Channel 4 we deliver about 12% share of audience across our portfolio of channels. Channel 4 in isolation would not deliver that. But as a portfolio of channels we are able to offer advertisers a bigger reach, better targetting through a mixture of mass market and more niche channels and above all else the opportunity for viewers to increasingly watch great content where, when and on what platform they choose.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
For the first time in my life I actually read the T&Cs of the site (well the rules of engagement actually). Apart from all the sensible things it says about not swearing or being otherwise obscene, one of the things it says is that we can’t ‘inconvenience or provoke others’, or be ‘inflammatory’. It took away all the excitement of taking part, I must say. I wanted to raise a vaguely inflammatory question. It is sometimes hard for us to ask in the context of a direct client conversation with one of the TV companies, without ‘provoking them’. Reading the posts above, realised that it was a topic that ‘jezwaspsrule’ was hinting at. This may be something to raise at the upcoming event.
Having spent the last 12 months looking in detail at the role of on-demand in all its forms, there are times that I still wonder what’s it for. More importantly, why would a TV company much such an effort to drive their viewers to it. All of the VOD services set up to date (and I’m talking about TV VOD predominantly) have been configured as though they are competitors to the main broadcast business, rather than support tools. (Seperate brand identities, no reference to the main channel, no mechanism to drive the audience back to broadcast at the end of the show etc). This wouldn’t be so bad if the commercial model had been sorted out and VOD was profitable on its own, but it hasn’t. At the moment, VOD is cannibalistic to audiences and broadcast revenues. If you are head of ad sales at a major broadcaster, you must be shaking your head in despair at why your company has launched (or is about to launch) one of these services.
One could argue, (if you were feeling ‘inflammatory’), that the main commercial broadcasters should either : close down their TV VOD services until they have discovered a stand alone commercial model; or reposition them as a customer support tool for the main channel, and use them to drive audiences back to broadcast. (with all the design and presentation changes that requires).
I would therefore like the conference address the question of ‘what is VOD for’ from a commercial point of view (as long as it won’t ‘provoke others’)
Tee hee – Nigel
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
@nwalley: Hello Nigel. Thanks for your typically provocative comment. And apologies for the arse-covering (not an inconsiderable task in my case) legals. I won’t try and give you a proper response; we need to leave something for the event after all.
But I’d just like to point out that so far there’s no sign that on-demand services are substitutions for linear TV. In fact, this year we’ve had some of the highest broadcast viewing for 15 years, and there’s some early evidence that being able to catch-up easily with TV they’ve missed, or the ability to act on a recommendation the next day, is keeping viewers in the broadcast stream.
I’m sure that at some point some linear viewing will switch to on-demand, but the net total TV viewed might be higher. The issue is really about whether TV companies can make an on-demand eyeball as valuable as a broadcast one. Let’s wait and hear what the TV company Televisionaries have to say on the topic on the 20th.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Can anybody define what ‘TV’ is now? Content and a/v advertising is distributed over multiple screens (on both a pull and push basis)
So, is a video displayed on a bus shelter side defined as TV or an adshell?
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Hi Tess – here’s a bit of axe-grinding from me! I’m with you that TV and TV advertising is here to stay, though its shape is clearly changing rapdily. One of those new forms of TV is IPTV and it’s happening here and now in this country. Media Week picked this up last week (14th October) with their piece “Channel 4 leads the way with targeted advertising”. Channel 4 ads are now being targeted to students through the INUK (IPTV) network thanks to a clever piece of kit and an even cleverer piece of software developed by Packet Vision – a company I’m involved with and you know about. Of course it’s early days but this is one new strand of TV no-one should ignore, particularly in these ‘credit-crunchy’ times because there’s additional revenue to be generated. I hope Televisionaries (great initiative) heralds this new development: as global thought leaders the UK needs to be on top of all this exciting new stuff. If you want a Packet Vision luminary there to explain I’m sure they’d be delighted to help.
Simon
October 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am
@barrybigfingers: I think we’ve got a very strong feel for what viewers mean by TV, and I think it’s important we always let consumer perceptions shape our definitions. We’ve got a long and tedious definition of TV if you want one: professionally produced immersive A/V entertainment delivered non-theatrically – but let’s just call it telly.
At Thinkbox we talk about the ‘convergence’ sandwich’ because there are always 3 layers: the distribution technology (broadcasting, broadband, DVD, mobile) the hardware (TV sets, PCs, iPhones, Wiis etc etc) and the really important stuff which is the content. That’s what defines TV in our opinion. So watching Sky News on your mobile phone at the bus-stop would definitely be considered TV by consumers, but I don’t think that video without sound would be. Moving escalator panels or online video windows don’t, I think, make it over the line; no sound (or rarely) is one major reason but it’s also the levels of engagement and attention, which are extremely peripheral in those instances.
YouTube is really interesting. We put it on the TV side of the line, but viewers switch between calling it TV and video, depending on the length of the content and whether it’s amateur/UGC or professional in origin.
@Simon Marquis. Hello Simon, how lovely to see you here. Rest assured, targeted, addressable advertising, be it via IPTV or web TV services, will definitely be touched on, though we’ve only got half a day. We’re interested to understand exactly how much advertisers want this. Packet Vision are clearly leaders in this field. Maybe we should organise one of our lower-key events around the topic at a later date and get you involved…
October 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I think that mash ups, far from being of niche appeal, will actually become the dominant application, particularly when you include advertising and music as an art form… This creates extremely sophisticated tv and people get bored online extremely easily with formats now…. They are also inured to advertising..
On the subject of long form.. what about long form mashups…. now that would be interesting…. jaws to mozart, coronation street to barry white with bits of an advertisement coming in and out of focus to get attention. Getting attention is the new imperative…. !! !!
Only the new will get the attention…..
November 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I suppose the real importance of defining subsets of TV (against other AV content and platforms) is not so much for the consumer but for the advertiser, media agency and content rights owner. It must be a nightmare for planners and buyers trying to put all this activity in to neat little budget compartments and reporting to clients. Equally, ‘TV’ revenue spends and forecasts must be getting less defined. Another dilema is how the rights and licensing protocol for equity, MCPS etc, etc needs to keep up with the changing landscape. I can’t see much evidence of the industry changing the current administration architecture to accomodate all the new screen distribution opportunities for TV like PDA’s and PC’s. I’m really excited about the future of TV and the commercial opportunities but I think there needs to be a lot more industry cohesion identifying the rules of engagement.