The Socialisation Of TV

Predicting the future of media is a bit like herding cats but like Faris, I believe that a key trend for communications is/will be the socialisation of 'mainstream' media. Simon wrote a rationally-minded post last week with 5 predictions about the future of TV including how the majority of viewing will remain passively consumed, linear-scheduled broadcast television and how simultaneous social media activity will remain niche.

In the comments, Graeme responded with the thought that scheduling will likely become more socially enabled and survive by being more like movie releases ("an opening weekend, a couple of weeks of cultural relevance, and a long tail"). Tess Alps followed up with some good points that in DTR homes (as a reasonable surrogate for on-demand), DTR's still only account for somewhere between 15% and 20% of viewing (in both the UK and the US), and that BARB data showed a relatively high level of time proximity for on demand to point of broadcast and that social media was enhancing the desire to watch at point of broadcast scheduling.

It was kind of ironic that on the same day as reading all this, twitter went into complete overdrive over the X-Factor with 8 out of the top 10 (and at one point 9) Twitter trending topics being X-Factor related.

X-Factor is a great example of socially enhanced TV – the Facebook fan page has over 850,000 fans and the wall posts generate thousands of comments each both whilst the show is on and off air (Nick has done a great run down of just how socialised the X-Factor is). Whilst people's primary social interaction around programming will likely always be with those in the room with them at the time, it'll be no surprise to anyone who's watched TV and been on twitter at the same time that social backchannels can add a lot of value in enhancing the viewing experience.

The success of the Facebook/CNN Obama inauguration coverage showed that combining compelling content with platforms that make it easy for people to comment and share with their established networks works well, particularly for event TV. The BBC are developing an iplayer app for Facebook , Hulu are streaming TV shows directly to their Facebook page using the Watch Now application, and Channel 4 are doing deals with You Tube to host full length Channel 4 content and experimenting with Test Tube TV (a service that "lets Facebook and Twitter friends watch, talk about, rate and recommend their favourite TV from 4oD and You Tube" – HT to Simon for reminding me of it).

So my question is this:- I believe it's inevitable that scheduling and viewing will increasingly be influenced by the shared interests of networks of friends – but by how much?

30 responses to “The Socialisation Of TV”

john v willshire

November 10, 2009

As always in this day and age, people have got there before the companies, and used the tools at their disposal to create their own social backchannels…
…even though those tools aren’t perhaps as good as they would have been had they been specifically designed for the task.
So you wouldn’t design Twitter as the perfect social TV communications platform.
The interesting bit about developing new tools around social TV is not so much about ‘event TV’ for me (the likes of X Factor), but whether it can persuade more people to create event TV for them and their mates…
…like when groups of friends gather in someone’s house once a week to gorge on 5 eps of a DVD boxset.
They select the night, the time, and interact socially without having to all be in the same place.
And if one person drops out, they can catch up on that episode at their leisure.
Kind of like the Google Wave of social TV… crossed with an online book group.
Something like that could, to your question, really start to impact on the viewing of ‘linear’ TV, as people would make time to participate with friends live, or catch up with what they need to in order to participate in the next one.
It’d be more incentive to sacrifice watching the ‘filler’ that people fall into with linear TV (though admittedly there’s perhaps a need for relaxing with that viewing too).

Reply
john v willshire

November 10, 2009

As always in this day and age, people have got there before the companies, and used the tools at their disposal to create their own social backchannels…
…even though those tools aren’t perhaps as good as they would have been had they been specifically designed for the task.
So you wouldn’t design Twitter as the perfect social TV communications platform.
The interesting bit about developing new tools around social TV is not so much about ‘event TV’ for me (the likes of X Factor), but whether it can persuade more people to create event TV for them and their mates…
…like when groups of friends gather in someone’s house once a week to gorge on 5 eps of a DVD boxset.
They select the night, the time, and interact socially without having to all be in the same place.
And if one person drops out, they can catch up on that episode at their leisure.
Kind of like the Google Wave of social TV… crossed with an online book group.
Something like that could, to your question, really start to impact on the viewing of ‘linear’ TV, as people would make time to participate with friends live, or catch up with what they need to in order to participate in the next one.
It’d be more incentive to sacrifice watching the ‘filler’ that people fall into with linear TV (though admittedly there’s perhaps a need for relaxing with that viewing too).

Reply
Aden Davies

November 10, 2009

A very interesting development. A couple of great examples I have seen recently include play along Come Dine With Me http://www.channel4.com/food/on-tv/come-dine-with-me/play-along/all-about-come-dine-with-me-play-along_p_1.html
and this fantastic looking football game http://football3s.com/ created I believe by Mint Digital who also have a few other ideas up there sleeve http://www.slideshare.net/Media140/media140-london-mint-digital-2389983 I especially like the Question Time Mockup which would allow you to synchronise the live tweetstream with the iPlayer version.

Reply
Aden Davies

November 10, 2009

A very interesting development. A couple of great examples I have seen recently include play along Come Dine With Me http://www.channel4.com/food/on-tv/come-dine-with-me/play-along/all-about-come-dine-with-me-play-along_p_1.html
and this fantastic looking football game http://football3s.com/ created I believe by Mint Digital who also have a few other ideas up there sleeve http://www.slideshare.net/Media140/media140-london-mint-digital-2389983 I especially like the Question Time Mockup which would allow you to synchronise the live tweetstream with the iPlayer version.

Reply
Nick Burcher

November 10, 2009

I was thinking out loud about this in a panel session last night. We were discussing the future of online video as TV content goes on line, but I’m starting to think that it could be more about what happens to the traditional box in the corner of the living room rather than what happens online.
In 2000 AOL tried to integrate IM into TV set top boxes but it didn’t catch on (mainly due to connection speeds and clunkiness of the technology.) As we see IP enabled TVs arriving, mobile taking off (eg Sky’s announcement today about streaming premiership football to iPhones) then it becomes less about a TV and online distinction and more about Audio visual content, any place any time.
In this situation there is no reason to think that social features, social platforms could not run alongside content that is being watched. Catchup players now run on standard TV’s, XBox now carries Twitter, Facebook and Sky – it’s not a huge leap to think about the box in the corner in the living room acting as a gateway to content (whatever that may be) and connections – rather than just a passive screen tied to standard schedules. At this point it ceases to be a ‘TV’ and just acts as another screen to consume from.
The other opportunity associated with this is for advertiser targeting. If the ‘TV’ becomes a two way screen in the same way that a computer is now, then there are huge opportunities for audience targeted / interest based advertising – radically changing the mass reach, traditional way of planning and buying TV spots.
– and the biggest event I have seen on Twitter to date is Eurovision. Huge, huge tweet volumes as people all over Europe got involved. Though the World Cup next year may really push the boundaries, how many people are going to be tweeting when David Beckham scores the winner in the World Cup Final?!

Reply
Nick Burcher

November 10, 2009

I was thinking out loud about this in a panel session last night. We were discussing the future of online video as TV content goes on line, but I’m starting to think that it could be more about what happens to the traditional box in the corner of the living room rather than what happens online.
In 2000 AOL tried to integrate IM into TV set top boxes but it didn’t catch on (mainly due to connection speeds and clunkiness of the technology.) As we see IP enabled TVs arriving, mobile taking off (eg Sky’s announcement today about streaming premiership football to iPhones) then it becomes less about a TV and online distinction and more about Audio visual content, any place any time.
In this situation there is no reason to think that social features, social platforms could not run alongside content that is being watched. Catchup players now run on standard TV’s, XBox now carries Twitter, Facebook and Sky – it’s not a huge leap to think about the box in the corner in the living room acting as a gateway to content (whatever that may be) and connections – rather than just a passive screen tied to standard schedules. At this point it ceases to be a ‘TV’ and just acts as another screen to consume from.
The other opportunity associated with this is for advertiser targeting. If the ‘TV’ becomes a two way screen in the same way that a computer is now, then there are huge opportunities for audience targeted / interest based advertising – radically changing the mass reach, traditional way of planning and buying TV spots.
– and the biggest event I have seen on Twitter to date is Eurovision. Huge, huge tweet volumes as people all over Europe got involved. Though the World Cup next year may really push the boundaries, how many people are going to be tweeting when David Beckham scores the winner in the World Cup Final?!

Reply
neilperkin

November 10, 2009

Some great comments – thanks.
John – yep, agreed. That thought about creating our own event TV with friends is kind of what I was getting at but I really like the way you’ve expressed it there
Aden – some great links – thanks for stopping by
Nick – great comment. Had no idea about Eurovision – somehow that one passed me by

Reply
neilperkin

November 10, 2009

Some great comments – thanks.
John – yep, agreed. That thought about creating our own event TV with friends is kind of what I was getting at but I really like the way you’ve expressed it there
Aden – some great links – thanks for stopping by
Nick – great comment. Had no idea about Eurovision – somehow that one passed me by

Reply
Charles

November 11, 2009

Don’t forget Radio too #moralmaze 🙂

Reply
Charles

November 11, 2009

Don’t forget Radio too #moralmaze 🙂

Reply
Simon

November 11, 2009

Hey Neil
I’ve been doing some research on X Factor recently, which informed my post. It is true that twitter peaks in use during the show, but these represent a relatively small proportion of the 16m peak (and 20m+ reach) that view each week. Of all the households we visited, texting was barely used – and web/social networks not at all. Because it is a shared viewing experience, people prefer to interact with people within the room – currently mobile/networking is on a small private screen and thus exclusive.
Of course, there are three caveats to this
– If it moved to the TV screen, it would be more inclusive
– Social media is still pretty new. If it becomes mass and more of a major part of people’s lives, could it transfer to TV?
– On probing – particularly around sport – there was some appetite for some sort of direct media channel where people could exchange banter around their competing teams. This was more like an instant messaging service rather than an open network though.
Cheers
Simon

Reply
Simon

November 11, 2009

Hey Neil
I’ve been doing some research on X Factor recently, which informed my post. It is true that twitter peaks in use during the show, but these represent a relatively small proportion of the 16m peak (and 20m+ reach) that view each week. Of all the households we visited, texting was barely used – and web/social networks not at all. Because it is a shared viewing experience, people prefer to interact with people within the room – currently mobile/networking is on a small private screen and thus exclusive.
Of course, there are three caveats to this
– If it moved to the TV screen, it would be more inclusive
– Social media is still pretty new. If it becomes mass and more of a major part of people’s lives, could it transfer to TV?
– On probing – particularly around sport – there was some appetite for some sort of direct media channel where people could exchange banter around their competing teams. This was more like an instant messaging service rather than an open network though.
Cheers
Simon

Reply
Tess Alps

November 11, 2009

My general approach when trying to predict the future of media is to assume that all technological barriers will have been lifted and that we will be left with just people’s desires. So human behaviours might change but only in line with human needs.
TV has been the 2nd most talked about thing (after friends and family) since God was a boy; social media is one more liberation and acceleration of that instinct.
Re convergence, we tend to descibe it as a sandwich ie three distinct layers coming together, consumed as one experience but with interchangeable and identifiable ingredients. The three laters are device, distribution technology and content. TV is most definitely a content industry; it’s had a variety of distribution methods for years and the internet, whther web or IPTV, is just one more. Consumers have no conflict whatsoever when they say “I’m watching TV on my computer/the internet/iPhone. You would still talk about listening to radio even though it might be coming to you via digital satellite broadcasting to a TV set.
If anyone is interested, we are running an event next week at the Soho Hotel called: TV Together: a very social medium. There are 2 new bits of research in it: the first about shared viewing and the second about how to get the best out of TV +social media. Speakers include Facebook, Amelia Torode from VCCP and David Wilding of PHD plus Justin Gibbons of Work Research. Details at http://www.thinkbox.tv
re Neil’s original question, I don’t think linear scheduling will change but it will become easier and easier to decide to gather with friends and binge on The Inbetweeners or whatever without having to buy a box set. Families are already using DTRs to delay the start of favourite programmes until their partner gets home, or using +1 channels. All of these insights wll be at the event above.
But people really appreciate schedules even if they never watch live! Peter Fincham describes a world without channels like going to a restaurant and being asked what you want to eat without being given a menu; a few people like it but most people prefer to be presented with someone else’s choice and recommendations.

Reply
Tess Alps

November 11, 2009

My general approach when trying to predict the future of media is to assume that all technological barriers will have been lifted and that we will be left with just people’s desires. So human behaviours might change but only in line with human needs.
TV has been the 2nd most talked about thing (after friends and family) since God was a boy; social media is one more liberation and acceleration of that instinct.
Re convergence, we tend to descibe it as a sandwich ie three distinct layers coming together, consumed as one experience but with interchangeable and identifiable ingredients. The three laters are device, distribution technology and content. TV is most definitely a content industry; it’s had a variety of distribution methods for years and the internet, whther web or IPTV, is just one more. Consumers have no conflict whatsoever when they say “I’m watching TV on my computer/the internet/iPhone. You would still talk about listening to radio even though it might be coming to you via digital satellite broadcasting to a TV set.
If anyone is interested, we are running an event next week at the Soho Hotel called: TV Together: a very social medium. There are 2 new bits of research in it: the first about shared viewing and the second about how to get the best out of TV +social media. Speakers include Facebook, Amelia Torode from VCCP and David Wilding of PHD plus Justin Gibbons of Work Research. Details at http://www.thinkbox.tv
re Neil’s original question, I don’t think linear scheduling will change but it will become easier and easier to decide to gather with friends and binge on The Inbetweeners or whatever without having to buy a box set. Families are already using DTRs to delay the start of favourite programmes until their partner gets home, or using +1 channels. All of these insights wll be at the event above.
But people really appreciate schedules even if they never watch live! Peter Fincham describes a world without channels like going to a restaurant and being asked what you want to eat without being given a menu; a few people like it but most people prefer to be presented with someone else’s choice and recommendations.

Reply
neilperkin

November 11, 2009

Hi Simon – thanks, that’s really interesting. I guess it makes sense that its all about the platform and proper integration would be the real game changer.
Tess – thanks for stopping by. I like the thought of the 3 layers – that’s a useful way of thinking about it. And I take your points about scheduling. But to Nick’s point – it’s not a huge leap to imagine the box in the corner of the room acting as a ‘gateway to content’ and social features running alongside that. And if proper integration could be the real game changer I guess my question now is – when that happens (as it surely will), would that not be a game changer for not only for how people interact with the content but also how they schedule it?

Reply
neilperkin

November 11, 2009

Hi Simon – thanks, that’s really interesting. I guess it makes sense that its all about the platform and proper integration would be the real game changer.
Tess – thanks for stopping by. I like the thought of the 3 layers – that’s a useful way of thinking about it. And I take your points about scheduling. But to Nick’s point – it’s not a huge leap to imagine the box in the corner of the room acting as a ‘gateway to content’ and social features running alongside that. And if proper integration could be the real game changer I guess my question now is – when that happens (as it surely will), would that not be a game changer for not only for how people interact with the content but also how they schedule it?

Reply
neilperkin

November 11, 2009

James Cherkoff has just written an interesting post about P2P TV which is relevant, over here…
http://bit.ly/2mF3SK

Reply
neilperkin

November 11, 2009

James Cherkoff has just written an interesting post about P2P TV which is relevant, over here…
http://bit.ly/2mF3SK

Reply
BenAS

November 11, 2009

I’m thinking DRM free music meet Lastfm / Spotify meets TV.
I like what Tess says about thinking of it in three layers, make sense to me.
TV programmes = /content
Spotify/Lastfm type platforms = distribution
mobile/TV sets/pocket projectors = device
I’m not sure any one person is going to crack them all, the disciplines are just to disparate, What do content makers know about electronic device development?
As i see it it goes something like this
1. Create great content
2. Create platform that can show all type of content that are stored and produce in various places.
3. Create devices that can host various platforms
In terms of going socail. I see platforms that use our open social graphs to allow us to share personalised schedules. And technology that provides suggestions of things to watch dependent on our previous history or what is popular among our social graph, think features like Pandora or spotify’s radio function – but made for TV.

Reply
BenAS

November 11, 2009

I’m thinking DRM free music meet Lastfm / Spotify meets TV.
I like what Tess says about thinking of it in three layers, make sense to me.
TV programmes = /content
Spotify/Lastfm type platforms = distribution
mobile/TV sets/pocket projectors = device
I’m not sure any one person is going to crack them all, the disciplines are just to disparate, What do content makers know about electronic device development?
As i see it it goes something like this
1. Create great content
2. Create platform that can show all type of content that are stored and produce in various places.
3. Create devices that can host various platforms
In terms of going socail. I see platforms that use our open social graphs to allow us to share personalised schedules. And technology that provides suggestions of things to watch dependent on our previous history or what is popular among our social graph, think features like Pandora or spotify’s radio function – but made for TV.

Reply
neilperkin

November 11, 2009

Great comment to pull lots of disparate thoughts together Ben…thanks

Reply
neilperkin

November 11, 2009

Great comment to pull lots of disparate thoughts together Ben…thanks

Reply
slavin

November 12, 2009

I’m not long on self-linking to anything, but I think it will be of distinct interest to the folks reading this — a presentation I gave about Area/Code’s work with TV.
We don’t have any chance to update our own site so there’s nothing on there about some of what’s in the presentation, but our work with A&E, Discovery, and MTV since 2007 has been a focus on these very points.
I have to apologize because the video is a bit long, but hopefully you’ll find it worthwhile. This was for 5D, about 18 months ago or so.

Reply
slavin

November 12, 2009

I’m not long on self-linking to anything, but I think it will be of distinct interest to the folks reading this — a presentation I gave about Area/Code’s work with TV.
We don’t have any chance to update our own site so there’s nothing on there about some of what’s in the presentation, but our work with A&E, Discovery, and MTV since 2007 has been a focus on these very points.
I have to apologize because the video is a bit long, but hopefully you’ll find it worthwhile. This was for 5D, about 18 months ago or so.

Reply
neilperkin

November 12, 2009

Thanks Slavin. Will take a look.

Reply
neilperkin

November 12, 2009

Thanks Slavin. Will take a look.

Reply
Fiona Cloke

November 12, 2009

Interesting discussion, I think Nick’s point about the box in the corner is very apt and it feeds into Tess’s layers.
Horribly outdated as the terms are, we’re all digital immigrants, to a friend of mine’s 3 year old it’s all just moving pictures with sound that you can consume on a different shape/size/coloured/location of screen. It’s just a screen.
3 year olds are happy to watch a full length Disney feature film on TV, on a TV screen via DVD or via YouTube on a laptop. They don’t think there’s anything at all unusual about catching up on their favourite TV show on the CBeebies iPlayer on Daddy’s laptop. My friend’s daughter asked for a “pink laptop” for her 3rd birthday. When she sees search results on YouTube she say “this one, no not that one Mummy”. She has no notion of scheduling. She just knows that she can choose what she wants to watch, and that she’ll always find something that will do.
Another friend of mine tells the story of visiting a friend with a 4 year old. The grown ups were chatting happily whilst Dora the Explorer entertained the child. The suddenly the child went from passively watching to ferreting around behind the TV. “What are you doing?” she was asked. “Looking for the mouse Daddy, this bit’s boring”.
I agree to some extent with Tess’s notion of no scheduling being like a restaurant with no menu, but I also think that’s where both traditional media channels and people’s social graphs play a role in creating awareness of content.
The important thing is human beings have a natural desire to interact and those shared moments of content consumption (i.e the DVD box set nights or some other appointment to view opportunity) all create conversation currency. Whether it’s in a shared physical space or a shared time with the experience shared and enhanced by discussions on Twitter doesn’t matter. More and more people are watching content on TV whilst sitting with their laptop on their knees interacting with other people / content simultaneously. Think about the successs of Kate Modern or Sofia’s World, the latter being a very interesting example of content created in bitesize webisodes with viewers contributing to story development, in turn re-cut and sold to Channel 5 for TV broadcast.
None of that makes schedulers lives easier if we take an “old world” frame of reference. But we no longer live in that world. People are used to having more and more control of what they want to watch, where, when and on whichever screen they want to watch it. Good content commissioned, produced and distributed via the right platforms & technologies (to Tess’s point) will always attract audiences.
Look at TED as a great example. Their videos frequently attract large audiences, their “new video” alerts on Facebook attract hundreds, even thousands of “likes” or comments.
Scheduling is one challenge to the industry but the monetisation of content is a far greater one. In the UK we are lucky to have the BBC, funded by the TV license. Anyone who has spent time in a lot of other countries should realise how lucky we are.
Funding the creation of quality content is getting harder and harder and crowdsourcing and UGC performs a role (look at the Doritos SuperBowl ad competition, now in year 2) but I still believe there’s a role for content aggregators/broadcasters in that picture.

Reply
Fiona Cloke

November 12, 2009

Interesting discussion, I think Nick’s point about the box in the corner is very apt and it feeds into Tess’s layers.
Horribly outdated as the terms are, we’re all digital immigrants, to a friend of mine’s 3 year old it’s all just moving pictures with sound that you can consume on a different shape/size/coloured/location of screen. It’s just a screen.
3 year olds are happy to watch a full length Disney feature film on TV, on a TV screen via DVD or via YouTube on a laptop. They don’t think there’s anything at all unusual about catching up on their favourite TV show on the CBeebies iPlayer on Daddy’s laptop. My friend’s daughter asked for a “pink laptop” for her 3rd birthday. When she sees search results on YouTube she say “this one, no not that one Mummy”. She has no notion of scheduling. She just knows that she can choose what she wants to watch, and that she’ll always find something that will do.
Another friend of mine tells the story of visiting a friend with a 4 year old. The grown ups were chatting happily whilst Dora the Explorer entertained the child. The suddenly the child went from passively watching to ferreting around behind the TV. “What are you doing?” she was asked. “Looking for the mouse Daddy, this bit’s boring”.
I agree to some extent with Tess’s notion of no scheduling being like a restaurant with no menu, but I also think that’s where both traditional media channels and people’s social graphs play a role in creating awareness of content.
The important thing is human beings have a natural desire to interact and those shared moments of content consumption (i.e the DVD box set nights or some other appointment to view opportunity) all create conversation currency. Whether it’s in a shared physical space or a shared time with the experience shared and enhanced by discussions on Twitter doesn’t matter. More and more people are watching content on TV whilst sitting with their laptop on their knees interacting with other people / content simultaneously. Think about the successs of Kate Modern or Sofia’s World, the latter being a very interesting example of content created in bitesize webisodes with viewers contributing to story development, in turn re-cut and sold to Channel 5 for TV broadcast.
None of that makes schedulers lives easier if we take an “old world” frame of reference. But we no longer live in that world. People are used to having more and more control of what they want to watch, where, when and on whichever screen they want to watch it. Good content commissioned, produced and distributed via the right platforms & technologies (to Tess’s point) will always attract audiences.
Look at TED as a great example. Their videos frequently attract large audiences, their “new video” alerts on Facebook attract hundreds, even thousands of “likes” or comments.
Scheduling is one challenge to the industry but the monetisation of content is a far greater one. In the UK we are lucky to have the BBC, funded by the TV license. Anyone who has spent time in a lot of other countries should realise how lucky we are.
Funding the creation of quality content is getting harder and harder and crowdsourcing and UGC performs a role (look at the Doritos SuperBowl ad competition, now in year 2) but I still believe there’s a role for content aggregators/broadcasters in that picture.

Reply
neilperkin

November 12, 2009

Thanks Fiona. I think some media owners would say that having the BBC makes it harder to monetise their own content but I agree with you – we’re lucky to have it. Great point about coming generations.

Reply
neilperkin

November 12, 2009

Thanks Fiona. I think some media owners would say that having the BBC makes it harder to monetise their own content but I agree with you – we’re lucky to have it. Great point about coming generations.

Reply