Will television channels find it increasingly difficult to retain audiences, losing them to the Internet? With audiences and especially the younger ones spending more time online, is there something that TV channels can do to attract them back? Can they take inspiration from the Internet?
Lets try and address a few other things that make the Internet more favorable than television to some audiences.
Anytime, Anywhere
We can access websites of our choice anytime, anywhere. Well, we do need access to the internet but that is not too difficult as we can access internet even from our mobile phones. Access to your preferred set of TV channels (especially cable or satellite channels) anytime, anywhere is not feasible. You cannot carry your set-top box everywhere you go. This could be resolved by having access to TV channels over the Internet or on mobile phones. If we don’t mind watching recorded programs, we can download the programs of our choice to a portable player. With storage devices getting smaller in size and larger in capacity and mobile phone screens getting larger, maybe we could watch recorded programs off our mobile phones.
More and more households have more than one TV set as well but not all of them may be connected to cable or satellite. While it is easy to carry your laptop from one room to the other, you cannot carry your TV and set top box around. If the set top box could communicate to more than one TV set wirelessly, then it would just make it easier for a household to have multiple TV sets, people could have small portable TV sets which they could carry around anywhere in the house to watch. This could increase the time that people spend with TV.
I recently read about a company called Sling media which is offering a device that uses the broadband network at your home to stream the programs to a computer at home or to your laptop even when you are outside your home. It connects either directly to your TV, or your video recorder or cable or satellite set top box. This means not only you can watch your favorite programs when you want but also where you want. This would be particularly beneficial to channels that have live programming- you are unlikely to record news or a live football match for later viewing.
While technology can only ensure that television is as ubiquitous as internet, the task of attracting busy and easily distracted audiences still remains.
Let’s now look at some other features that make the Internet more favorable and see if it is feasible for TV channels to replicate them.
Interacting with like minded people
It is easy to find like-minded people on the web, join a group of people who want to discuss issues that you are concerned with, post your comments on the website etc. It is not passive. When it comes to watching television, we all discuss a football match that we see, performances of participants in a game show or even who is breaking up with whom in soap operas. However, the television does not facilitate coming together of like minded people in the same way as the Internet does, beyond geographical barriers.
Interactivity would increase if using the TV remote, I could message my friends who are watching the same cricket match as me and discuss with all of them, how the players are performing, criticize the umpire’s decision or even bet on the outcome. This could be as simple as launching a "messenger" in a little window on my TV screen. I could "buzz" my group of friends who are online (i.e. also watching TV) saying there is something on channel X that could interest them.
Interactivity, Call to action
Another key feature of any website is interactivity. Let’s say I am on a travel website where I can explore various links to find out more information about a particular destination and then go on to a website that sells airline tickets. How can a TV channel combat this?
Imagine if the TV channel could provide me "related links" on the TV screen and I could open up another window on my (large) TV screen to explore those links. Continuing with the example of a travel program these related links could be
"Watch another holiday destination on the same channel at a different time/ next week etc- Set reminder for this program."
" Visa requirements to travel to this destination"
"Airlines flying to this destination"
"Websites where you can find more information about this place"
If you are concerned that people will get distracted, let this not worry you: People multi-task anyway: Watch TV and read, Watch TV and study, Watch TV and browse Internet…Further, additional information is provided only if the viewer wants it and it empowers him to take further action.
The channel could also prompt me about the brand of clothes worn by the host on the program and the nearest shop where I can buy such clothes, based on my location.
Feedback is an important part of interactivity. Websites usually provide an avenue for feedback. A TV viewer has no easy and direct means of expressing his opinion about a certain program. Imagine a set of instructions that appear on the screen- How do you rate this program? Press 1 if you like the program a lot, press 2 if you liked it a little, press 3 if… Such direct feedback, especially on the qualitative aspects of a program would be very valuable to broadcasters, rather than just viewership numbers.
Customization
Some websites allow you to customize how the page looks and select what should be displayed on the screen. We can’t do that with TV channels today.
Let us say I am subscriber to a sports channel and a movie channel. While I am watching a movie on a movie channel, I want to stay in touch with the score on a cricket match. Is there a way I can just put the score card from the sports channel in the corner of my television screen while I am still watching the movie? Or maybe I can place the stock ticker from the business channel at the bottom of the television screen while I continue to enjoy watching cartoons with my kids.
Depending on the device that I am watching the TV program on or the amount of time I have available, I could choose whether I want to watch key highlights or full program. When I am traveling and watching TV off the internet or on a mobile phone, I could select the shorter version and catch up on news headlines or watch the critical events in a football match I just missed or the turning points in a drama that I am following or just read the ticker from a business news channel.
If developments such as those mentioned here do materialize, Television will continue to be the most relevant medium.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
More Involvement Please (637 words)
By Milind Sattur
I am sure we all go shopping. What do we do when we buy? We compare prices and features! (Well, maybe not, if we are buying potatoes.)
Let’s say we wanted to buy an MP3 player. We would compare the look, compatibility with devices we already own, storage capacity, file format, battery type, accessories provided, what else is in – voice recorder, FM radio, photo-viewer… This evaluation process takes much longer if the value of the item is higher. So when you buy a laptop or a car, you would have more things to compare or would do more cost-benefit analysis. You would even get “expert” opinions, do a “test drive” or at least buy extended warranty to protect yourself in case of any eventuality.
In summary, you would go to great lengths to ensure your money is well spent.
Let’s now pretend we are shopping for airtime on regional television. (I am sure the value is much higher than an MP3 player, a laptop or even a car in some cases.) How do you evaluate which channels to put your money with?
Well, we explore the different data sources available, understand the methodology behind these different research services, how the sample is arrived at (is it representative of all the audience and markets we want to reach?), how is the data collected, weighted, what are the sample sizes, see if there is anything that can bias the responses, how “current” is the data…
Do we really do all that? Is media (buying) a “high-involvement” product? It doesn’t seem like. Just a few runs on PAX and we make a decision! Sure, as media planners and buyers we explore a lot of options like: Can I get a lower CPM (cost per thousand)? What value addition can I get? Can I get sponsorship? Can we do product placement? Can I get the first or the last spot within an ad-break? Can I get online presence?
While all this is necessary, are we sure we have distributed our money appropriately across the different channels? To answer this, we need to be sure we are using the right research. I suggest a few more questions be added to your evaluation list.
What is the audience data that you are using? Is it Diary, PeopleMeter, PAX or ATMS? Is it actual viewership or is it claimed viewership? How is it collected? By reading out the channel names? By showing the channel logo? Is it collected using another medium – for example, collecting TV viewership data using the internet survey? What constitutes viewership? average number of people watching the channel at any given time? Or is watching the channel for a minimum of two minutes in a month a good measure of viewership?
When we buy something for ourselves worth a few hundred dollars most of us will go and check out more than one shop. So why is it that when we buy media worth tens of thousands of dollars, we don’t check if there is more than one research available? It is always better and easy on all of us to use just one measurement service. Yet, when there are limitations with that one measurement service, we don’t we ask, is there any other research available that confirms it? Which one is closer to reflecting actual viewership? Media planners and buyers who have had a chance to work with diary and peoplemeter data have seen how different the recommendations are, when they moved to a more accurate measurement of viewership. And if that is still not conclusive, can you buy some “warranty”? Can you invest in some tracking research and see if your decision was right. At least you will be sure the next time around.
Make media buying a “high-involvement” decision. We owe it to ourselves and to our Clients.
This article appeared in the issue of MARKETING in July 2005
By Milind Sattur
I am sure we all go shopping. What do we do when we buy? We compare prices and features! (Well, maybe not, if we are buying potatoes.)
Let’s say we wanted to buy an MP3 player. We would compare the look, compatibility with devices we already own, storage capacity, file format, battery type, accessories provided, what else is in – voice recorder, FM radio, photo-viewer… This evaluation process takes much longer if the value of the item is higher. So when you buy a laptop or a car, you would have more things to compare or would do more cost-benefit analysis. You would even get “expert” opinions, do a “test drive” or at least buy extended warranty to protect yourself in case of any eventuality.
In summary, you would go to great lengths to ensure your money is well spent.
Let’s now pretend we are shopping for airtime on regional television. (I am sure the value is much higher than an MP3 player, a laptop or even a car in some cases.) How do you evaluate which channels to put your money with?
Well, we explore the different data sources available, understand the methodology behind these different research services, how the sample is arrived at (is it representative of all the audience and markets we want to reach?), how is the data collected, weighted, what are the sample sizes, see if there is anything that can bias the responses, how “current” is the data…
Do we really do all that? Is media (buying) a “high-involvement” product? It doesn’t seem like. Just a few runs on PAX and we make a decision! Sure, as media planners and buyers we explore a lot of options like: Can I get a lower CPM (cost per thousand)? What value addition can I get? Can I get sponsorship? Can we do product placement? Can I get the first or the last spot within an ad-break? Can I get online presence?
While all this is necessary, are we sure we have distributed our money appropriately across the different channels? To answer this, we need to be sure we are using the right research. I suggest a few more questions be added to your evaluation list.
What is the audience data that you are using? Is it Diary, PeopleMeter, PAX or ATMS? Is it actual viewership or is it claimed viewership? How is it collected? By reading out the channel names? By showing the channel logo? Is it collected using another medium – for example, collecting TV viewership data using the internet survey? What constitutes viewership? average number of people watching the channel at any given time? Or is watching the channel for a minimum of two minutes in a month a good measure of viewership?
When we buy something for ourselves worth a few hundred dollars most of us will go and check out more than one shop. So why is it that when we buy media worth tens of thousands of dollars, we don’t check if there is more than one research available? It is always better and easy on all of us to use just one measurement service. Yet, when there are limitations with that one measurement service, we don’t we ask, is there any other research available that confirms it? Which one is closer to reflecting actual viewership? Media planners and buyers who have had a chance to work with diary and peoplemeter data have seen how different the recommendations are, when they moved to a more accurate measurement of viewership. And if that is still not conclusive, can you buy some “warranty”? Can you invest in some tracking research and see if your decision was right. At least you will be sure the next time around.
Make media buying a “high-involvement” decision. We owe it to ourselves and to our Clients.
This article appeared in the issue of MARKETING in July 2005
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)