Category Archives: converging

converging

The Black Box Fallacy

Black_box there’s a very compelling theory that at some point all our media will be accessed through a single black box.  a box that will deliver our TV, gaming, email, movies and web surfing all to one (or multiple) screens through a single access point.

it’s very compelling because it sits so neatly with our concept of convergence; with the idea that technology will be developed (and indeed already exists) to deliver a range of content to our TV screen.  the much-anticipated PS3 not only does games, but does HD DVD and can wirelessly access the internet to boot.  Sony doing internet, Microsoft doing TV etc.  convergence right?

wrong?

the more you think about it the more you realise that there probably isn’t going to be mainstream adoption of a little (or big) black box.  firstly, there’s no historic evidence for it; as Henry Jenkins notes in his book Convergence Culture;

"I am seeing more and more black boxes.  there are my VCR, my digital cable box, my DVD player, my digital recorder, my sound system, and my two games systems, not to mention a hug mound of videotapes, DVDs and CDs, game cartridges and controllers, sitting atop, laying alongside, toppling over the edge of my television system"

he’s not alone.  we have all experienced not the convergence but the proliferation of black boxes.  even when a device can do multiple tasks, it doesn’t necessarily replace a separate device dedicated solely to that task.

but the second reason why the black box theory is a fallacy is that context in which we consume stuff changes.  my wants and needs as I type this were very different from my wants and needs last night when I was watching a movie.  Jenkins quotes a Cheskin Research report * as pointing out that:

"The old idea of convergence was that all devices would converge into one central device that did everything for you … What we are now seeing is the hardware diverging while the content converges

… Your email needs and expectations are different whether you’re at home, work, school, commuting, the airport etc., and these different devices are designed to suit your needs for accessing content depending on where you are – your situated context"

"Designing Digital Experiences for Youth", Market Insights Series, Fall 2002 pp. 8-9

there’s a fundamental difference between access (hardware) and content, and where there is evidence for convergence is with the latter…

the above is from the Animatrix.  one imagined world; with a multitude of different content; but all designed to be accessed differently across different channels; movie’s at cinemas, DVDs at home, MMOG via PC.  its a big early commercial example of what Jenkins has termed Transmedia storytelling, Faris Yakob  wrote a great post about it here.

it is content that converging.  so that we can access it whenever we like on whatever terms we choose.  its for this reason – its worth noting – that we have seen technological convergence outside the home in the form of the mobile phone (which is also a camera and MP3 player and soon TV too)…  we have a luxury of choice inside our homes – PC for working, TV for movies – that we don’t have outside.  hardware convergence happened on phones because the contextual need for the convenience of one device, was more important that the contextual need for different devices to be designed for individual tasks.

of course there will be some hardware convergence, but there is unlikely to be a killer-ap black box adopted by the mainstream.  the fact that technology exists is no reason for it to be adopted.  we stubbornly continue to allow human context to determine how we adopt and use technology.  good job too.

whats going to be fun is to see to what extent commercial advertisers use transmedia storytelling.  at the moment a campaign idea tends to be executed across different channels.  there’s little consideration given to how what is produced can be contextualised from the off.  and there’s massive opportunity for the advertisers – and indeed the agencies – that learn how to do this best first.

Standard
converging, internet, user-generating

broadcasting user-generated content

I’ve been pointed in the direction of two recent examples of the convergence of established and emergent media.  the first is UKTV G2’s Totally Viral; which each weeknight at 10.30pm showcases ‘the best of the internet’ as sourced by the editors as well as viewers.

G2_totally_viral_1

I commented in a recent post  that the BBC was making a news programme consisting entirely of articles suggested by the public, and suggested that what it was doing wasn’t as significant as the fact that it had taken a stand on how (as part of the established media) is was going to relate to the emerging user-generated world.  in creating Totally Viral, UKTV has made a similar statement.  is it TV or internet?  its both.  and better for it.

another example is from the states, where Channel 101 (based on Los Angeles) and Channel 102 (New York) play host to 5 min-long programme pilots.  each month the pilots are screened to audiences, who vote whether to renew (for another month) or cancel the shows.

Channel_102

the ones voted top form the ‘primetime’ of the schedule (which because it’s streamed online is a by-word for the best rather than a description of how it’s broadcast).

so users are generating content, which is showcased and voted on by offline audiences.  the best stand out and the rest vanish, the aim being to stay in syndication for as long as possible.  the established world connection?  Channel 101 has signed a deal with VH1 to broadcast 3 min-long clips in a broadcast show called The Department of Acceptable Media.

both great examples of how emerging media can and will complement the established broadcast worlds.  the rules of programme development and commissioning remain the same, it’s just a much more democratic way of doing it.  and given that anyone can have a go, and the fact that TV companies don’t have to invest in programme development, get ready for the dozens of examples that will no doubt make it into commercial production and onto broadcast TV.

as a final thought – it will be interesting to see if advertisers attempt to use these examples to cost-effectively develop their own content.  I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t.  although how non-commercial user-generators will take to competing against commercial producers remains to be seen…  advertisers will have to be transparent in their ownership of content, and that may compromise the point of them doing it in the first place.

that said, some of the best bits of content showcased on Totally Viral are commercially produced.  the only rule; good content is good content, and in the new world no ones even sees – let alone remembers – the bad stuff.

Standard
broadcasting, converging, user-generating

What is TV?

Tv_1a colleague last night took part in a panel at the Branded Content Marketing Association’s annual networking party.  the question to be addressed is a straightforward one.

what is TV?

it’s a simple question with a less than straightforward answer; TV is about aggregation of content.  it is the act of aggregating content that I think turns what would otherwise be a collection of stuff into TV.

the recent turmoil in the UK TV industry has largely come about because of two fundamental shifts in aggregation …which used to be a monopoly; first with the BBC and ITV, and then with Channel4 and five, there existed a limited group of aggregators that determined what content was commissioned and bought, and aggregated into TV.  this monopoly of aggregation remained unbroken and profitable until a few years ago, at which point the monopoly was broken on two fronts.

first, the monopoly was broken by the evolution from a few into many more commercial aggregators.  the rise of digital television started as far back as the early days of BSB in the early nineties, but the pace of this evolution increased with increased consumer adoption of digital satellite and latterly Freeview.  there are now over 400 commercial aggregators broadcasting in the UK, some of them directly from brands (for example the Audi Channel).  that’s a lot of fragmentation, a lot of content spread very thinly (hence the necessary rise of the strong niche channel brand) and a lot of impacts being fought over.

but it’s the second break of the monopoly that has caused most discussion of late; and far from being an evolution within the industry its a people’s revolution.  the aggregation of TV requires content and distribution.  technology has allowed citizens to produce the former, and the internet has allowed them to do the latter.  we are all – should we wish to be – content aggregators.  we are all budding broadcasters.  and a generation is learning to watch TV aggregated by commercial entities as well as fellow citizens.

what is TV?

TV is the act of consuming aggregated audio-visual content

this is important.  because if we run with this definition – and I do – it means that watching YouTube is television.  it means the monopoly is broken forever.  it means that there are hundreds of thousands of aggregators.  it means every one of us can start broadcasting right now.  and I find that a very exciting prospect indeed.

Standard