Is it right to think that UK citizens will use technology like Koreans – is it just broadband or are there other deeper cultural/behavioural issues that determine usage?

January 26th, 2010

The conference on Thursday 21st January at OMS was interesting. The main content providers, broadcasters, policy makers were all focusing on the push for broadband. All were agreed (pretty much) that we would be missing out – UK PLC would miss out if we don’t have faster b/b speeds. Just over fifty miles down the road in Whitehall at a gaming conference, the push was similar – we were losing billions because of our slow internet speeds.

Accordingly Jeremy Hunt and Ed Vaizey in both conferences were assuring audiences in Oxford and London that investment in BB would be forthcoming. Damian Tambini (LSE) asked Jeremy Hunt where was the research to justify such expenditure and Hunt agreed he was not an expert and did not have research to draw upon. However he was clear and confident about the impact on BB on behaviour in Korea and drew similarities to how it would help the UK.

My opinion is that I believe that there does need to be research asap  and one focus should be  a comparison on UK audience behaviour with, for example,  Korean audience behaviour.  If we are to look at Korean or similar Asian countries as a behavioural benchmark , I would suggest beginning by considering the context of viewing and as such the cultural and socio-economic differences: 

1. A good start would be to look at the cross cultural differences as identified by Triandis on the development of the individualistic and collectivist paradigm since this may have implications for tv/mobile technology use in the home.

A hypothesis could be that in Korea (or similar Asian countries), private internet use of the mobile maybe more likely to continue into the home routinely, and perhaps more likely to quickly become an embedded behaviour because, as a culture, Koreans are more likely than UK viewers to approach negotiation in ways to preserve a relationship.  Triandis defines Collectivism, as the subordination of the individual to goals of the collective. This maybe very different to behaviour in the UK where we are more likely to assert our goals and negotiate.  Triandis would describe the UK as more of an individualist culture. Individualism, Triandis defines as the subordination of the goals of the collective to the goals of the individual .  Understanding these cultural norms would mean that in the UK there maybe more of a tendancy to openly debate and argue about what’s on the main set. 

The implications of this could be that as  a consequence most of our viewing is not what we might have chosen privately but more of a compromise.   Whereas in Korea there is less negotiation and perhaps more of a tendancy to seek out private screens.

As P3 consortium members know , in our UK study, the hierarchy of viewing in the UK PVR home is ‘high urgency’ programmes are watched socially. Secondly the next level, which makes the bulk of TV is Compromise tv.  It’s the private viewing – the favourites that are recorded and squeezed into rare moments of ‘My TV time’  But ultimately the UK tv viewer will prefer to compromise and watch socially than watch privately.  Certainly there is much evidence in our research and others to understand that viewers are prepared to negotiate around what they watch.

Of course it’s ironic that our compromise viewing serves the purpose of the collective,   but here in the UK we like viewing socially and are prepared to compromise, but will invariably put up an argument to try and get the best from the compromise .

In sum , if negotiation is difficult or awkward in some Asian countries eg: Korea, China, private viewing be more enjoyable and win the day and as such there may be more use of individual screens in the home.

This of course needs cross cultural research but it will be interesting to see if the Triandis cultural paradigm impacts viewing in these countries and if they do we maybe more hesitant in ’stretching’ the use Koreans make of their mobiles and broadband to UK citizens – at least in the home .

2. A second point  is to also compare cross cultural economic history and the impact of the individual’s sense of self  relating to their material wealth. In the UK where we have relative historic wealth, – as such an individual may define their sense of self through the type of house they live in, their car, their clothes, their technology including the mobile. This may differ to countries such as China or Korea where there has been massive economic growth in the past ten years and perhaps less of a history in terms of defining oneself through their house, car or even clothes.  Now,  with the recent rapid growth,  young middle classes may be more predisposed to define themselves through their mobile phones. These  portable, highly visible statements may say more about themselves and may explain (to some extent) why they renew their phones with greater regularity, use more applications and are more engaged in the phone than perhaps individuals in the UK.

Gradually over time , one could argue,  Asian countries may become wealthier and its middle classes may become more interested in cars/property.  Equally  UK citizens may attach more of their sense of self to their phone as it increasingly becomes more of a status symbol and perhaps as other items such as cars, homes are less obtainable.   It’s difficult to predict, but what we do know is that we definately need more cross cultural research into these differences to understand the extent to which bb will change our lives,  if we are to draw upon similiarities in behaviour between different countries.

Are ITV catching themselves up?

November 23rd, 2009

Response to article as published on Friday in Advanced TV.com

ITV: 20% catch-up by 2013
From Colin Mann in London
A senior executive at ITV has suggested that 20 per cent of viewing of its channels will be via ‘catch-up’ services in 2013, up from four per cent currently.
Carolyn Fairbairn, Director of Group Development and Strategy at the broadcaster told delegates at the Digital TV Summit that this would come from its ITV Player on itv.com as well as other platforms and PVR/VoD-enabled devices. “We need to be where our audiences are,” she said, suggesting that there was a good demand for ‘middle tail’ programming, and the challenge was to monetise this. “We’re getting much more optimistic. We want to find new pots of new money.” She also revealed that ITV was “thinking very hard” about monetising the opportunity for viewers to preview ‘next in series’ episodes.

Whilst the above article could be seen as an endorsement of what we wrote in early 2006 – (PVRS and advertising exposure: a video ethnographic study published in the International Journal of Qualitative Market Research) and delivered to the industry at a conference at the LBS in June 2006 . There are some major concerns with this comment by Carolyn Fairburn particularly in the way she is merging all PVR viewing and VoD catch-up and archive under a single term of ’catch-up’.
I would argue that the term Catch- up is a clumsy generic term as it disguises the actual viewing behaviour and confuses the market. Under this term  I estimate that True On Demand would be roughly about 3-4% in PVR homes with 16-17% time-shifted content watched off PVR.

Also this all-encompassing phrase of ‘catch-up’ highlights the sad lack of customer insight on the aviewers appetite for catch up and archive – archive is different and viewers audience behaviour is different with catch up and archive so the merging is not helpful.

A few points:
 
1. I think it’ s safe to assume that her predictions should be based on Mark Oliver/Toby Syvret /Neil Mortensen forecasts of 75% households having PVR by 2013 – so there is nothing that new in her statement in terms of technology adoption.
2 So assuming ‘catch up’ is 20%, if in current PVR homes timeshifted is 16- 17% then vod is still 3% – how much investment is this worth in comparison with micro-payments damaging the ITV brand?
3. Why is she saying ‘we want to be where our audiences are’ – surely she shouldn’t be saying this, ITV with an audience of 13 million on Saturday, are definitely where the audience is …already… and certainly will be in the future – that is,  if they don’t upset their audience in the future with micro-payments.

November 4th, 2009

4th November – Penny Payment for Old Content….

Rather like Robert Peston of the BBC I have been busy with other projects for the past three months so have neglected the blog somewhat.

But I thought I might discuss the recent flyer that came through my door last week from BT Vison offering films on demand for 1p -  1p for Cocktail and about 14 others on offer for about a week.

I think this is a marketing disaster, when will they learn that their users will have a better choice of film saved on their PVR that the viewer will have chosen and will be more relevant. To some extent the viewer will have that recording in mind when going to the main set and use if the context is right.  There is no way on earth they will buy a film for a penny – its not worth that – .  So we have BT Vision potentially devaluing its delivery and being associated with something unattractive, old fashioned and out of date.  Sadly I guess this will be a complete flop and not only a complete waste of money but also ultimately devalue the brand of BT Vision.  Hopefully other broadcasters won’t replicate this business model otherwise it will do even further damage to their business models???

Is this good news: Microsoft focusing on what they’re good at and Five joining Canvas?

July 31st, 2009

And so we hear that Microsoft is launching a new, advertiser-funded video-on-demand service in the UK on the 3 ft, which will offer a wide range of content from distributors including the BBC Worldwide and All 3 Media. Starting small this new Microsoft platform will make 350 hours of material on the 3ft but in the long term the platform could stretch to the Xbox and mobile.

Microsoft asserts: This is really concentrating on the PC,….We’ve learned to understand the different audiences and their different requirements. We’re aiming to be one of the most popular services in VOD.

I think that by targeting the known users of PC’s will enable Microsoft to tailor specific content for the private viewing experience that is so highly prized on the 3ft by viewers. It is a good position to take in terms of familiarizing viewers at this early stage about content on the 3ft.  As ever navigation and intuitiveness of design are key to making this work in addition to delivering high quality relevant content to the viewer. Content  is critical in that the platform will be delivering content to the private viewer the bulk of the time.  Timing is also critical - obviously in anticipation of the huge PR that will be generated by the arrival of Hulu later this year, it will be good for Microsoft to position itself well now. Be interested to see their marketing and how they sell this to the private viewer!

On the 9 foot I can see why Five has joined Project Canvas. It must be because they are desperate to move fast to support Canvas in an attempt to prevent Sky from seizing the VoD market. Sky are currently positioned brilliantly and I can understand why now all the remaining main channels are clubbing together to push a defensive strategy.

In terms of adoption of PVRS : Enders/Opera/Oliver&Ohlbaum are all agreed that by 2013 adoption will be in the region of 75% – I think it may be sooner than 2013. Why is this so important? As we know the hierarchy of viewing is: Live, PVR, VoD (and the proportion of VoD in PVR households on the 9ft main set is tiny).  Furthermore since most PVRs are Sky, Sky are in the enviable position of having data on what the bulk of these viewers watch and they can promote  relevant/favoured VoD content  when they choose to launch their Sky VoD seriously!

The only hope in terms of VoD for the remaining main channels in the long term is to push Canvas as a matter of urgency to familiarize the audience with Canvas and market it so well that the PVR is then forced down into third position in terms of hierarchy of viewing. They are short of time and I think the task maybe too difficult especially with the rapid adoption of PVRs .  They will have a hard job to convince the viewers that the PVRs are less relevant but it maybe worth a try.

One Red Herring and 3 Powerful Points

July 22nd, 2009

Further to the article by Emily Bell last week and the subsequent hoo ha regarding the MS article I think this is pretty much a red herring.

The main concern is that the industry that relies so heavily on claimed behaviour – delivering an overhyped impression of the impact of technology and the subsequent ‘liberation’ of viewing – this is the worry and those that continue to spend money on such research without a real grounding in actual behaviour will be in danger of delivering a misleading customer/consumer perspective to the industry and this will continue to be as it has already been a very expensive mistake.

Enders Analysis refer to the issue flagged up at the conference in their latest report and the issue to do with overreliance on claimed behaviour.

Enders Analysis has drawn upon the body of evidence presented at the LBS on the future of TV Anytime (On Demand and Convergence conference organised by ACB and LBS two weeks ago on 7th July) to deliver three main points that form the basis of a report and they are as follows (with my comments in red italics):

1. On-demand TV is but one form of TV Anytime. Other forms include DVD sales, rental and PVR timeshift, and internet streaming and downloads. Most are non-linear applications that enable viewers to access video content at their own time of choosing and without being dependent on any linear schedule. To these must be added certain linear options, such as staggered channels and repeats that also contribute to greater freedom of choice. Enders have reaffirmed the main definitions outlined in the conference that are helpful for the industry to truly understand the monetisation around on demand and not confuse it with other existing models.
 
2. Audience data for some popular programmes, which show how upwards of 50% of the total consolidated audience was generated outside the original time of transmission, indeed provide some support for the notion of TV Anytime. However, in the case of VOD, current research evidence shows a large degree of overlap and substitutability with PVR timeshift, where recency and catch-up are the main drivers of viewer use. And, of the two, PVR timeshift is much more heavily used. Some programmes (as ACB identified) are more likely to be delayed as opposed to archived on the PVR and then more likely to be watched within a few days. – this rich source of choice on the PVR of favourite archived content and catch up content makes it a tough for VoD to penetrate the PVR enabled tv. Personal choice is more powerful with the planner and the concept of having something saved to watch strongly influences what is watched after live.
 
3. Current VOD options include cable TV VOD services and IPTV VOD services delivered over the Internet. Although younger viewers access substantial volumes of video content off the Internet, the great majority of viewing across all age groups is to content delivered to the TV screen. We may expect significant relative growth in VOD audiences as broadband convergence enables viewers to watch IPTV content on their ‘living room’ TV screens; the actual amount subject to a number of factors, such as the outcome of the Ofcom pay-TV investigation and future of the BBC/ITV/BT project Canvas. Still, the experience of Virgin Media suggests that absolute VOD growth will be small and VOD share of total TV viewing will only amount to a few per cent in the foreseeable future. In addition, significant monetisation issues with respect to both the pay and advertising revenue streams are expected to hamper growth over the next ten years, at the end of which we expect the VOD viewing share to lie somewhere below 5% of total TV viewing.

Authors Toby Syfret and Ian Maude suggest that there is a need for more research into the use of the EPG and navigational issues that determine the audience journey.

Following on from their recognition of the problematic issues to do with claimed and actual one would expect that any serious researcher would have to conduct ethnography in the natural context to minimise bias.

Indeed as early as Phase 1 of the  1-3-9  media lab research proejct we found that participants were impacted by the introduction of the Sky HD EPG and that this had very different uses in terms of navigation – for example we saw participants going straight to the HD Channels and this impacted their choice of channels.

Are there any further pieces of research that are on going that address these research questions?

Are there any other burning questions such as those suggested by Enders that haven’t been answered by the research presented at the conference?

We have a list, but it would be interesting if you could share yours?

Seems like I’m not alone

July 17th, 2009

Following on from my post the other day about the Morgan Stanley article, a member of the LBS/ACB conference audience has sent me this article by Emily Bell - it’s good to see I’m not the only person who found the MS article worrying…..

Data shouldn’t be child’s play

16 July, 2009 | By Emily Bell 

If you are a highly remunerated strategist in a broadcast business, then there are two things that need saying: one, congratulations for holding on to your job; two, have you had that report by a 15-year-old work-experience boy from Morgan Stanley waved at you by colleagues ? Or have you waved it at them? (In which case, I refer you back to point one).

Morgan Stanley published the note from Matthew Robson, 15, describing it as: “One of the clearest and most thought-provoking insights we have seen.”

If this is true, then clients might want to reconsider their financial relationship with the bank. Mr Robson’s note is, indeed, authentic, and nicely phrased for a 15-year-old, but as for insightful, it tells us that teenage boys don’t like paying for stuff, they have a low threshold for long bits of text and they find advertising “annoying and pointless”.

Insight for twerps

As the parent of three boys who one day will be 15, and one who already thinks he is, I can tell you that they find many things annoying and pointless, including their parents. But it is ‘insight’ only to twerps who haven’t engaged with media consumption habits at all in the past 10 years, which might, as far as I know, include the entire research team at Morgan Stanley.

It did occur to me, however, that 15-year-olds are a bit passé so I conducted my own insightful research project with a five-year-old, an eight-year-old and a 12-year-old – which gives media companies a much broader-based, more future-oriented sample.

It turns out that when offered the choice between the comment pages of the Guardian or Ben 10 Alien Force, five-year-olds prefer the latter and actively encourage product placement for the Ben 10 Omnitrix. The five-year-old sample gave some devastating insights into TV branding: If Sky 1 is crystal, Sky 2 is slime, Sky 3 is magic dust, what is Sky 4?

The market shows an interesting shift for eight-year-olds, who in the space of a week switched from preferring the computer to the TV, “because I’m more into Torchwood and less into Adventurequest” (please don’t call social services – he hasn’t actually watched Torchwood). Bad news though for print: “Well, I am only eight so I don’t really read newspapers.”

When given the choice between an endless supply of comics or an iPhone, the five-year-old sample was conflicted and couldn’t choose, the eight-year-old picked the iPhone “but not to ring anyone up on as I don’t know anyone with a phone”, and the 12-year-old rolled his eyes: “This is, like, so lame.”

Lame indeed. We might be in trouble as an industry but we have to be able to do better than anecdote as data, or we will be as doomed as the investment banks themselves.

Emily Bell is director of digital content, Guardian News and Media

Thanks and what can we learn from a teenager?

July 15th, 2009

Comments on the conference have been really positive:
“A steller line up with lots of very interesting presentations” to
“really useful and interesting with an incredible evidence base presented throughout the afternoon” and
“usually with these things there is a lot of overpromising and maybe one or two takeouts but the papers yesterday were uniformly great with some exceptional contributions“

So with such flattery I thought that we could get the blog site up and running so people could add their own comments on the future of on demand tv, take-up, usage and revenue. 

As you will see from the conferences page on the acb website,  all the presentations are available. and if you have any questions don’t hesitate to get in touch. 

To kick off the blog I thought it a good idea to respond to a rather controversial piece of research thrown in the ring the other day. I have been asked to respond to this article by several of those that attended the conference.  So on that basis I have attached the article for you to read and also noted a few comments, but I would like to challenge you as the reader to consider what purpose do you think this serves?.  Morgan Stanley described the essay as ”one of the most clearest and most thought provoking insights we have seen”.  To view original PDF click here

I have no doubt it will spark debate as it has column inches. My point would be as always when drawing on claimed behaviour unless it is an attitude as such it really should be backed up with empirical research.  As you saw in the conference claimed behaviour is inherently unreliable.

I  am frankly surprised by Morgan Stanley, its relatively easy to rustle up some anecdotal teen claimed behaviour that we (the adult) and they ( the teen)  perceive as different, however because this is so unreliable,  you have got to question the context in which Morgan Stanley investment bank are interested in the perusings on a 15 year old.