This text attempts to forecast some of the effects of the much-touted technology/media convergence on our traditional advertising models, and further elaborates on a concept for non-linear, unobtrusive advertising that would seamlessly integrate into programming, as well as provide the opportunity for usage metrics to be collected.
Our traditional assumptions about media and advertising are about to undergo a sea change. Or, at least, there is the potential for drastic change. Whether or not it comes to pass that the industries concerned fully embrace the opportunities offered by digital media remains to be seen.
We're on the cusp of a convergence of telephony, computing and entertainment. All signs point to this; and in point of fact, it isn't an earth-shattering insight to anyone who's even mildly informed. What will be interesting about this convergence is the extent to which the companies caught in the maelstrom will abandon models that have been in effect since the inception of commercial television in the 50s. I had to catch myself before I wrote anything to the effect of the current model being adequate or sufficient in any way. By and large, commercial television as it was conceived in the fifties has been outmoded for at least 20 years, but it's the only way anyone knows how to advertise, and the forces of inertia are so overwhelming that any change is almost unthinkable.
As one tracks the penetration of broadband internet connections, personal video recorders (PVRs) and high-definition television (HDTV), as well as the steady exodus from landlines to mobile telephony, we can see the major building blocks fall into place, setting the stage for what will be the next phase of evolution for the mass diffusion of media.
In the face of the Tivo phenomenon, where users record their favorite programs and watch them on their own time, largely skipping through the ads, the industry's response has been to ramp up efforts in product placement. This is a tactic which I simply can't stand. From the Coke glasses prominently displayed on the American Idol judges' table, to "Survivor" contestants rhapsodizing about the latest GM vehicle put up as a prize for whoever eats the most silkworms, product placement is fundamentally and annoyingly blatant--in point of fact, it wouldn't be called product placement if a name, logo, brand, or other recognizable marks were't noticeable. And therein lies the problem. But, much like the traditional ads that interrupt our favourite programming, advertisers cling to these methods like a sinking ship's captain clings to the wheel, hoping against all hope his efforts will somehow salvage a hopeless situation.
What will happen when the web and television come into the home through the same cable? It is perfectly reasonable to assume that it will; in fact, the idea of a single point of entry for telephone lines, television and the internet is more than a techno-geek's dream, it is likely an inevitability. So what happens when the web and television programming share the same delivery platform? Is it reasonable to assume that both streams of information will always be steered to separate appliances which, though some of their functions may overlap, are used in distinct and separate locations? How practical is it for the home computer to be the place where movies, music, pictures, VoIP software, heck even recipes are kept?
Microsoft's answer to this is Windows XP Home Media Center Edition, ostensibly the means to turn your computer into an intelligent dispatcher of information in the household. But we're still wedded to the computer! Why is this particular paradigm so hard to break?
What if television "stations" were to be conceived of as web sites? What if I could "log on" to ABC, at any given time of day, and get customized content that I have pre-selected? What if a television could provide the ability to interact with on-screen content like a web browser does?
Imagine this scenario: You subscribe to television "channels", much the same way one subscribes to websites in order to get premium content. The structure of the subscription would entail different levels of flexibility and access to content, but setting aside these details for the moment, this would also mean that users would generally not be willing to submit to the traditional, linear-type programming, with commercial interruptions. Again, this depends on the subscription structure, but let's look at the premium end, assuming that a user has paid enough not to have any visible ads cluttering the screen, either in the form of banners, commercial interruptions or product placement. What we are left with may seem limited, but this is where looking at the playing field in a different manner provides bountiful opportunities.
The programming itself is now the only content to which the user is exposed. We know that product placement feels contrived, and especially so because, by its very nature, it must make the brand obvious and visible. What if it needn't be that way? What if product placement could be so seamlessly integrated into the programming as to be invisible? Further, what if, being that ditigal television used in tandem with a DVR would allow for some level of interaction, the user could pause the programming at any time and click on items she sees in the scene, and get more information on that item (like who makes it and where it is available for purchase)?
This presupposes that a lot of background work has been done. Imagine a dedicated team working at a production company whose task it is to document every item that appears on camera, no matter the prominence. This team would work with the various manufacturers/suppliers to ensure that the items are properly "tagged", i.e. that they are accompanied by relevant purchase/availability information as they appear onscreen (perhaps even refined to the regional level).
Next, imagine a post-production team whose task it is to construct the interactive overlays that will sit on top of the programming. These overlays would contain "hot zones" that are, in essence, clickable zones that follow the items onscreen. These zones would, upon a user's click, open additional windows (which can be conceived of as browser windows for the purposes of this text), and these windows would provide the additional information on price and availability.
In essence, what this amounts to is that every single item in a television program is clickable. Once a user knows this, names, brands or logos needn't be made obvious to the user. In point of fact, the very integration that would underlie this kind of model would also allow for "treasure hunt"-style promotions, where users are encouraged to scour programming to locate hard-to-find items. (The possibilities are too numerous to list here, and will likely form the basis for additional reflections at a later time).
Two things are happening while users perform these actions. One is that the users' television viewing habits and preferences are recorded. Time of day, watching patterns, programming preferences--all of it is recorded. At the same time, data on the viewer's purchasing behaviour are tracked: what items the user clicks on, how frequently these clicks lead to purchases, etc. Again, the amount of data that could be collected here is limited only to the desires of the programmers and distributors. Whereas Nielsen provides general information on viewing habits, but cannot provide specific information on selected markets (e.g. cities or regions). This method would allow for far more granular precision, and hence offer the prospect of higher advertising fees and market discrimination (programmers would be abe to tell, say, which cities represent the biggest markets for a specific kind of chair, which is valuable information to marketers, and heretofore unavailable).
In a later post, I will address other advantages to having a central point of access to all forms of communications/media.
