The Future Of Interactive Television

Introduction

The days of gathering before the television set to watch TGI Friday are fading into a distant memory. What was once primarily controlled by the big broadcasting names, dictating what you were watching, when, and where, is now becoming an experience of personal preference. People are not only selecting what they want to watch and when, but they are also deciding whether to watch their favorite shows on their televisions, laptops, Ipods, and cell phones. There is a shift of content, audience participation, and space, but will broadcasting companies be able to keep up with these new innovations?

Traditional Television

Internet is not slowly killing television

Studies have shown that the number of viewers watching full television episodes and shows on the Internet have doubled over the past year. About 16% of American households with Internet access watch television broadcasts online. Four out of five viewers have claimed that their viewing habits have not changed by watching their programs online, but there are a small number of those that have claimed that their traditional TV viewing has decreased (The Conference Board). According to the media execs of the Web 2.0 Summit, the rise of the Internet is not killing television, “TV is merely changing with the times.” (Needle) Essentially, it doesn’t matter what screen the content appears on, just as long as people have easy access to it and can interact.

Although some might prefer to watch shows on a traditional television, Internet television gives viewers the opportunity to watch when they want to and when it is convenient for them. Internet television has the opportunity to reach a far greater audience and things like MySpace TV prove that, producers and networks have really begun to take notice.

Television moguls crossing the gap

Television broadcast over Internet protocol, is called IPTV. Although we feel the full aspects of IPTV have not been realized there are many ways in which IPTV is already in existence. Producers and networks have begun embracing forms of IPTV and it will be only a matter of time before all possible aspects of IPTV will be realized.

The thought by most companies is that they must embrace this change or they will be left behind. David Lebow, former general manager at AOL Media Networks, now runs Internet Broadcasting (IB). Essentially IB runs websites for many of the nation’s premier television stations.

The thought behind IB is that these television stations are trying to stay relevant to its viewers and to be more than just TV. Lebow sees the change that is taking place between the web and television. He suggests that television stations should not just be extending their brands online because they will be missing out on a lot of revenue and missing the point. Lebow feels, “The opportunity is to create a local forum for discussion, sharing, polling, user-generated content- the things you see light a fire on the Web.” (Malone 2007)

Major television networks have also begun to embrace this growing trend, realizing that if they do not embrace this trend they will be left behind.  CBS Television Distribution has teamed up with Madison Road Entertainment and Maverick Television to promote their online talent contest, Big Shot.

The formula that CBS has created for their first online show is based around users uploading their video to compete in seven daily talent categories. These videos are then broadcast in a five-minute online show. The winners are decided through daily online polls and the winners go to Hollywood to audition.

CBS has also paired Entertainment Tonight with the show to promote it. They will have a weekly segment that shows how celebrities got their big break. This segment will help to encourage viewers to participate in the show. CBS says that this is an experiment for them and attempt for them to get viewers from the web to TV and then back again. This is an attempt from CBS to reach younger viewers.  (Grossman 2007)

CNN has also joined the Interactive wave by using citizen journalism posted online to their site to create a television show.  It has been very popular and has a been helpful in keeping their users involved but it has also been helpful to CNN as a whole by helping them with their breaking news stories (Palser 2006).

On the cutting edge of these changing times is Joost.com., a website the provides free television over a broadband connection. Already, companies like CBS, Nike, Intel, and, just recently, the MLB have joined forces with Joost to provide content and ads for their service. Joost is an example of the industry crossing the gap of Internet television and audience participation. Not only does the site provide content, but it also provides plug-ins and applications for people to chat and comment about what they are watching.

Audience Participation

The active viewer

It isn’t that the companies “fear ubiquitous Wi-Fi access” from companies like Google (Needle) but they are finding it necessary to combine efforts with such powerful companies to keep themselves in the business. The greatest adversary that the broadcasting companies face is not the attention that the Internet receives, but the changing attitudes of the next generation of television viewers.

TV viewer and Internet users are becoming more of the “do-it-yourself-ers” than the passive consumers. The Internet has provided tools for people to take control of various aspects of their lives – social networking, news, entertainment – and this interactivity has started to move outside of industry control (Deery, 162). Yet the industry see this and is slowly making attempts to keep the interests of its viewers by spending mass amounts of money to cross the gap of television and the Internet. They invite viewers to be “players, communicators, and voters” (Deery, 162). They also establish websites where the viewer can watch episodes of their favorite shows, but it is the viewer-generated sites that are in the majority and receive regular attention.

Internet as a muse

The Internet would not be the Internet if there were not open forums and social networks full of rumor speculation and criticism, but the shift is also moving towards viewer created content. With websites like the Current, Rocketboom, and Quarterlife, independent creators are picking up video cameras and creating content that they know people want to watch. Rocketboom, a three minute daily videoblog, focuses on art, technology, and weblog drama, topics that the current Internet generation is interested in. They spend no money on promotion and rely on word of mouth, yet they are one of the most popular videoblogs.

The Current lights the creative fires of its viewers to report on the current pop culture. All the videos are independently done by people with an idea and are broadcasted on the Internet and television. They not only provide a channel through Comcast and satellite to show the videos, but they also provide ways to be sponsored by other companies and be paid for content that the company uses.

The creators of Quarterlife were once part of the Hollywood industry, but frustrated with production restraints, decided to create a site that is an open forum for people to network, much like Myspace. Herskovitz, creator of the show revealed. “Ed and I have a great interest in being independent, and for several years, we’ve realized the Internet offers that possibility (BBC News).” Quarterlife is primarily geared to the twenty-somethings and focuses a great deal on arts and pop culture. Not only is it a meeting ground, but they have also created a show with new episodes being posted twice a week. Mark Burnett the creator of the show Survivor and has also been shopping around a show for MySpace. He thinks, “People gravitate to MySpace, where they are really heard. By combining MySpace with the TV show, you can take it far past just a vote…I believe Americans are ready to hear a voice that reflects who they are and what they believe (Schneider 2007).”

This is the competition that corporate broadcasters are facing – independently run websites that provide news and entertainment. The technology is out there and accessible to the active user. Camcorders can be obtained as cheaply as a hundred dollars and free editing software can be found on sites like Jumpcut (Lawton). The quality can be poor as long as the content is interesting – Youtube is a prime example of this standard. Yes, people still want high quality video, which is being provided through high bandwidth, but it’s the content and interactivity that attracts people’s attention. “The market needs companies that provide high-quality video and content that’s curated and packaged in the right way where frequently the content owner is the editor,” says Mike Volpi, CEO of Internet TV play Joost (Needle).

The Search for Standards

Mass Media as we have discussed is in a transitional period, nowhere is this more evident than on television. Recent findings suggest that the future of television lies with Interactive Television, which is sometimes called ITV. Celia Quico defines ITV as “The convergence between television and interactive technologies”. Interactive television is itself a very broad topic and usually ranges from low interactivity, which can be things such as changing channels on the remote to high interactivity, which is when the viewer actual had control over the content they are viewing. At this point in time we are transitioning from a moderate level of interactivity to a high level. Many people are under the assumption that the Internet is the downfall of television. Our research shows that this is not completely true. Rather than a takeover by the web, there seems to be a merging of both mediums.

One of the most talked about technologies is IPTV. This is television that will be delivered over your existing broadband connection. One feature that will be enhanced by IPTV is the triple play option that many providers and customers have been experiencing with. Triple play is simply bundling your television, phone, and Internet into one package. With IPTV, not only will your bill be consolidated, but all the technologies will work off the same network as well. There are some problems with the technology that have to deal with connection speed and working on a wireless network. IPTV is not a new concept, and people are desperately trying to work out the kinks in order to make it something that is present in every household.

When we first started researching this topic, we had set out to describe the technology that is evolving. After some research, we found that most of the studies out there have to do more with the concept of social learning rather than technological advances. Social learning is described as, an approach that focuses the attention away from technology as the source of social action and instead highlights the way that new and old technology is incorporated by people in pursuit of their own aims often accompanied by struggles over definition uses and control (Williams and Edge 1996). Like AIM and You Tube, the new phenomenon is finding the next killer application. The web is so wide open, and if television is going to merge with it, the long tail is going to have to be included. The problem doesn’t lie in the technology, but in the way we use this technology. Many of the researchers have urged for standardization and for developers to be open-minded and more importantly open sourced about the creation of new technology. Social learning research is being conducted in order to find what could possibly be this next killer application.

Another popular form of research that is being conducted is called user-centered research. This is where the subjects study themselves and then based on their findings they form what there preferences for future applications would be.  Most of the subjects had long tail interests from downloadable do-it-yourself videos to a collaborative social networking game based on the show Futurama. Most of the findings also included that people envision a singular set top box that will allow access to the Web-TV combination.

Some of these ideas are in use by the ITV Cabo network, which runs in Portugal. The ITV network was launched in 2001 and included a fully interactive television service that included DVR and a Set Top Box. The most popular features were the ability to converse with others during a soccer match and multi user games. The research done regarding the ITV Cabo network showed us that Virtual Communities are not just for the computer anymore.  One aspect that was very popular in Portugal was the Noites Interactivas, which are talk shows in which the viewers can interact and even have control over the outcome, which the author points out is something that will keep the audiences interest. The other important finding was the standardization process that worked for national network; if it can work in Portugal, why not the United States?

The research surrounding the future of Interactive Television is one that will need to continue to develop. Many researchers believe that the next killer application will be one that perfects the television and social networking worlds. There is also a call to standardize the interactive television experience, which is predicted to be a process that will be done by the users themselves.

Conclusion

The point of all of this is that the attitudes and perceptions of the younger generation are very different from the TV audiences of no more then a decade ago. No longer is television just a place for passive viewers, it is a place where active viewers can learn, create, and become more involved. Technology is improving and people’s attention spans and commitment to entertainment are morphing to the fast paced lifestyles and quick delivery of information.

 Television producers and companies have begun to realize how important it is to embrace this trend and many have begun. The opportunity to reach a greater number of viewers is out there and companies are just figuring out how this will all work. In the future the number that embrace this trend will be much greater. Interactive television is still growing and the better the technology the more interactive the user can be with the things they watch and do. This leaves endless possibilities for the future of Interactive Television. Television will never die it will just be viewed in different forms. Realizing that this is not your Grandparents TV is the key and keeping an open mind to the possibilities is vital to the full realization of interactive television. The television/internet hybrid needs to relinquish control to its users and viewers and cater to their independent and creative attitudes.

Bibliography

BBC News (2007). Cancelled TV Show Goes to MySpace. BBC News Entertainment.

Deery, June (2003) TV.com: Participatory viewing on the Web. Journal of Popular Culture, 37(2), 161.

Grossman, Ben (2007). “Big Shot” Has Big Local Plans. Broadcasting & Cable.

Lawton, Christopher (2007). Video for Everyman. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119076444203939332.html

Malone, Michael (2007). Lebow Ponders Web 3.0 for IB. Broadcasting & Cable.

Needle, David (2007). Video Meets the Web Meets TV. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3706386

Palser, Barb (2006). Mining the Web. American Journalism Review.

Schneider, Michael (2007). Burnett, MySpace get political: ‘Independent’ timed to 2008 elections. Variety

The Conference Board/TNS (2007). Consumer Internet Barometer. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://www.conference-board.org/economics/consumerBarometer.cfm

So in my Mass Media and Society class(522) our discussion last week was whether we are more informed in the information age. I think it is a tough question and I put that to all of you, are we more or less informed in the information age?

Through this book I would have to say that I think the general thought would be that we are more informed because of the opportunity to obtain more information through extensive searches. I would also have to say that this paper would suggest that if the information is out there then it is obtainable so therefore we all should be better informed about issues. I mean in theory we should all be able to be better informed but I don’t think that it is that simple. One of my classmates in 522 suggested that we are better informed but only on one subject because that is what we are interested in and that is what we focus our attention on. And I think that is true I’m obsessed with old movies and I definetely know a lot of useless information about old movies, it’s not to say that I don’t know other things but I really know a lot of useless things about old movies. I also think that this question has to do with the trends of society. I think in our society no one really cares too much about important information, the masses, I think people might be more concerned with whether Britney Spears is getting her lips injected with collagen. We focus our attention on obtaining information that really is useless and I guess that is just how our society is, so I guess we all are filled with useless information about celebrity gossip. So I guess through my ramblings I have decided that our society is more informed about celebrity gossip than actual useful information about anything including presedential campaigns.

I liked the discussion about presedential elections because as always it is a hot button issue and with the upcoming elections it will be interesting to see who uses the web to their advantage. So far for a past blog I checked out Clinton and Obama and they seemed to be doing a pretty good job. I did think that Clinton was better than Obama, her website had some really good videos about her position on certain issues.

While reading the Shibuya Epiphany one tiny part stood out to me the most, there was a quote from a young girl that said essentially that if I don’t recieve a lot of texts during the day then I feel like no one loves me. I think that this in many ways has become the way is which we show affection and let people no that we care for them. I mean I think maintaining relationships has become much easier since text messaging has really taken off. It makes it easier to communicate things and makes it much easier to keep in touch. I think that idea of using your cell phone as a remote to control things in your life is a really great idea. Linturi in this article was using his cell phone to control things around his house and my favorite thing was if someone rings his doorbell he can talk to them from his cell phone, that is something I would definetely like to have on my cell.

What I was shocked about while reading this chapter was that all of this research was done in 2001 and all of these communities all over the world were completely obsessed with texting. I don’t really think that I became obsessed with texting until probably 2003-2004. It seems like the United States was really behind in the current trends but now in 2007 the companies have really started to utilize text messaging even in their ads. You know the commercial with the family that talks in text messaging abbreviations, even the grandma. I just wonder in the future how the written language will be affected. I wonder if there will continue to be this great divide between text language and proper language?

As for the “Digital Memories” article I think that the general idea is really great an innovative but at the same time I just wonder when it becomes too much. I mean essentially this mans life is controlled by digital devices, and I know everyone in a sense is controlled by their digital devices but I think this is taken to an extreme. I think keeping a lot of digital memories is great, and as “My Life Bits” suggests a terabyte just isn’t going to cover it in the future, but I don’t think that I want every little moment of my day recorded. I think gps for keys and glasses would be good but I think it is just too much. My point is that for this guy as the experiment it sounds really cool and like a really great idea but the practicality of this for the future and for everyone is a little far fetched for me, it is just too much.

So I haven’t really been paying much attention to the presendential campaigns lately, I go through spurts where I check things out. So I went to Hillary Clinton’s website and I was really impressed with the website. It had a lot of information and I felt as though if there were an issue I was curious about I would most likely be able to find the answer. So I checked out the videos on the website and I was surprised at how many videos were on the site. Then I checked out something called Hillcasts which is essentially Hillary’s webcast about issues that she thinks are important. I think that she is really focusing on reaching a broader younger audience and realizing that with the popularity of things like youtube.com she can really reach some people.

So then I went to Barack Obama’s website and it seemed the same but it did not have videos and it did not have something similar to the Hillcasts that Hillary was doing. It had a blog and I thought that it might be Obama addressing issues but it was other people addressing issues. For me I want to hear what he has to say and I think that he doesn’t have to do a “Hillcast”, although I think it would benefit him, he should maybe start blogging. He could at least have someone blogging for him and say that he did it.

Hillary seems to be making attempts to reach younger people on their level and I think it would really benefit Barack to do the same.

So after reading these chapters I decided to check out Joshua Allen’s blog and it seemed like a great thing. I definetely understand the perspective of John Wiley that this is good way for evil corporations to connect with their customers and show them that they are somwhat human. And I agree that eventually all companies will blog and it will benefit them.

My problem with this is that what happens when the blog is controlled by those evil coprporations and an evil CEO is dictating everything that is typed in the blog. It could be that I am cynical to those evil corporations and anything I hear about them I take with a grain of salt. But I think that when all corporations realize that blogging can help their company relate to their customers they will use it and no longer will blogs be a place of honesty and perspective. When large corporations begin controlling blogs I think it will be the death of blogging. I think that large corporations have trouble not controlling everything that is involved with their companies and I think that it will be very difficult for them to have a laissez faire attitude toward blogs. I think that these chapters in the Naked Conversation have made me realize that one day blogging will not have a non-corporate feel and eventually the day will come when I read a blog and think I wonder what CEO dictated that.

After reading these articles and signing up for second life I began thinking is this something that should be only for play or should it be something that becomes corporate. For me I think that play and corporate are something that should be completely separate. As the article “Nature and significance of play as a cultural phenomenon” stated that play is a freedom. It is a way to escape the world and enter a different world without the pressure and the stress. I think that is what second life should be, now although I am new to this second life thing for me I want a way to escape the business world and I think that fact that businesses are using second life is not a good thing. I think that these should be two separate places, one for business and one for pleasure.

The business aspect of something like second life is a great thing especially in the experience economy. It is a way for businesses to give the consumer something new each time. I think that second life can only really benefit businesses as more consumers begin to live inside their games.

On a more personal note I really do not know what to think of this. I think it sounds like a really cool game and I definetely will check it out but I just feel like I have too many better things to do with my life than sit in front of a computer and live in a fantasy world. I’m not saying that everyone who plays this lives in this world but I think some people do and I think it is ok for them but it just doesn’t work for me. I definetely play video games and I like them and there have definetely been times when I have played for too long but it is easy for me shut the games off. I think that if this is a reality for some people they might really have trouble shutting this off. Games like second life scare me a bit because I think it is very easy to become addicted and I think creating an alternate world makes it much more addicting than video games. I think that for me I would much rather experience real things than things in a computer game. I guess the way that I play is different than others and I guess that is true for everyone.

I am interested to see where this will go in the next five years. Does anyone play second life for fun? Can you tell me what your experiences have been? How much do you play?

We’ve got a topic, so we just want to divide up the work, get some ideas out and discuss and put our idea in a direction and come up with a proposal and then get to work.

Blogs and online journalism are definetely a challenge to mainstream journalism. It is a way for a user to continue research and go more in depth about stories that are presented in mainstream media as Axel Bruns stated in “Wikinews: The Next Generation of Alternative Online News?”. But as Sunstein’s “Democracy and Filtering” article states could it possibly makes us avoid other opinions.

I think that this is a great question, for me I had only really thought about the positives that online journalism and blogs had brought to people. It is easy, convenient, and can go more in depth than a newspaper because there is not a limited amount of space. But can it also make our knowledge of issues completely one sided. Could we become so involved in the “Daily Me” that we don’t really care about other issues and other opinions about these issues.

For me Walter Bender’s “Daily Me” article brings up a point that in his final experiment the hope was to make people have stronger journalistic skills and be more critical of information that is presented. And I think that this is what blogs and online news are doing for people. It is making them look at things in a different way and making them better experts on certain things. But I do think that it is very easy for people to isolate themselves from other ideas and other groups of people.

In the “Wikinews” article, wikinews was struggling because of lack of personalization and no one really wants to give just the facts online, they want options to give their opinions. And I think that wikinews is a nice attempt to have an unbiased site online but I think people want more than just the facts, the facts are just too boring. If it were possible the next struggle to create the great online newspaper or blog would have more than one perspective presented on a certain topic. If both perspectives were in the same place it would allow people to more easily compare and also have a greater knowledge of a subject. I’ve never really seen a site that does this but I think that maybe in a somewhat utopian world this would be helpful to keep people more informed. Maybe on certain issues one perspective would write and article and then the complete opposite perspective could write the same article, just a thought. If anyone has seen a site like this please let me know.

I think that there are so many good things that can come from online journalism but I just think that we have to be open to the fact that we need to explore outside our personal interests and be open to other things. I think think that it is completely possible for a person to be one dimensional about their news online and that scares me especially for upcoming presedential elections. And after reading the Sunstein article I think I will try to be a little bit more open and broad with the news that I look up online.

I feel like in “High Preformance Project Team” the four rules sound really great and I’m sure in a perfect world they would work but this is the real world and things don’t necessarily work like that, I think that we can strive to achieve those things as best we can and then we just have to hope for the best.

The whole time I was reading the parts discussing the role of the leader I kept thinking about my white water rafting trip this weekend and how we needed a leader to do well because in the beginning we really didn’t have a leader and we had some problems with our raft but then when we delegated a leader, we began to work much better as a team. After that the trip was much smoother, well as smooth as a white water rafting trip can be.

When I was working at post production house for the Food Network I really got a taste of what a good leader can bring to a group and how a bad leader can ruin a dynamic. When I first started we had one leader and things ran very smoothly and the entire office got along really well, we all respected one another and things were done on time and properly. Then my boss went on maternity leave and we got a new boss. And this boss had a different demeanor and talked down to you. She also had no real experience in post production and she was pretty much clueless and she was always watching over you to the point of nagging. Suddenly the office wasn’t so fun anymore and we all started to resent working there and our boss. And actually I left there because of that boss and a few other people followed.

I think that this article gives some good guidelines and tips but I feel like there are so many more things that can affect a group than can be written. I think group situations are tricky and I think that even if people don’t have the best experience working in a group setting but things are accomplished properly then I don’t think that it really matters. In the case with my new boss things weren’t being done properly and weren’t being done the way they should have which only combined with a horrible working situation to make me leave. I think that if things were being done properly it would have been easier for me to stay because I did really enjoy my co-workers.

I think that in “Working Smart” the layouts that they give also work well in a non-virtual setting, I mean not so in detail but assigning things and telling people when they should be finished so that the group can continue is good in both the virtual world and the actual world.

I don’t know I’ve never really been on a virtual team, I mean I have communicated with people over emails and IM’s to get projects accomplished but for the most part I feel like in those situations we all were going to meet back up at some point and figure things out. I think that for me face to face interaction in the group scenario works much better. I feel like it is easier for me to communicate things face to face. I also feel like it is easier for me to get a feel for people if I meet them face to face. I think that it is harder for me to feel out what time of team member they will be just through emails and etc. But I do understand that in some situations it is just easier. I think that the readings from last week will really be dependent on strong virtual teams that can communiate properly and effectively to achieve tasks.

All in all I think that if you combine both of the readings and take a little from both you can probably be an effective leader and hopefully create successful groups. Although there are so many factors that go into groups that are very intangible but all in all I think that if you follow some of these guidelines you just might be a bit more effective. I’m not going to say that you’re going to be the greatest but maybe just a little bit better.

I wrote about the new promise of collaboration, this is what I wrote, it was empty when I looked at it so I figured I should fill it in “The New Promise of Collaboration
Peer production will “harness human skill, ingenuity, and intelligence more efficiently and effectively….” With collaboration firms will be able to get opnions and knowledge from other experts outside their networks. This will create more information available to the firms and create stronger products. Peer production is essential to collaboration and by firms becoming more open collaboration will lead to greater knowledge and more accomplishments.”