Revolutionary Measures

Will the internet kill the TV star?

Last month streaming service Netflix entered the UK to great fanfare and with a stated aim to challenge the likes of Sky when it comes to winning TV subscribers. A nice soundbite, but one that got me thinking about where we’ll get our ‘TV’ content from in the future. Obviously internet streaming companies such as Netflix and Lovefilm (and even Sky themselves) are now pitching themselves as the savvy choice for those who want to sign up and download the latest shows and films, often before they make it to TV.

However often that same content is available through other channels, ranging from iTunes to that old staple, the DVD boxset. So what can internet only services do to differentiate themselves, apart from price? There’s a lot of talk about creating their own content, from both Netflix and established brands such as YouTube but you need to either be spending big on stars or sporting events to stand out or focus on established shows that are already hits. Given the power of the likes of Sky, which can simply create new channels to maximise the impact of its content (as it has in F1), it will be a tough ask to muscle in. Just ask BT which saw its Vision service comprehensively outmarketed by Sky when it tried to go head to head.

Before I’m accused of being a Luddite, I do think Netflix will be successful enough. People do want to access TV content over the internet, and either play it direct on their internet-connected TV

Image representing Netflix as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

or through tablet or laptop. Just look at the tremendous success of the BBC iPlayer and other TV catchup services to show how, promoted properly, viewers will flock to an easy to use solution.

Where the real opportunity is going to come is in super-services that make it easy for mass market consumers to access whatever programme or film they want, when they want. Consumers don’t care if it is on Netflix or Sky, just that they can click, pay automatically and watch. Essentially it has to be as simple as surfing to another channel without having to register or download software. And it has to span multiple channels – so you can watch the same content on your TV, laptop or mobile device wherever you may be. Get that right, build a brand and that will be the platform for control of future TV.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

February 6, 2012 Posted by | Creative | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Google killed the TV star?

Image representing Eric Schmidt as depicted in...

Image via CrunchBase

Last week Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt gave the prestigious MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival, making him the first person from outside the broadcasting industry to do so.

As well as some crowd-pleasing attacks on Alan Sugar and a call for greater UK focus on technology innovation he used the platform to talk about the forthcoming launch of Google TV. Already out in the US, this allows viewers to access the internet while watching TV programmes and search content across both.

Google TV is a logical move for the search giant, and the desire to be the gateway between the TV and the internet is a major reason for the recent purchase of Motorola, which has a big business in set top boxes. Google exists as it is able to collect and analyse vast amounts of data and use the outputs to deliver up targeted content and adverts, and, given that bugging people is illegal, the TV is the one untapped area of our lives that they don’t currently have access to.

But I don’t think Google TV is going to have as easy a ride as some may think, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the TV experience is still about content and this is something produced by broadcasters first and foremost, whether it is live, accessed through catch-up services like iPlayer or streamed, rented content from the likes of LoveFilm or Hulu. So Google needs to take the industry with it, hence the partnership tone of Schmidt’s Edinburgh speech.

Secondly, the TV market is still conservative and slow moving. In my experience people buy PCs/tablets more often than they change TV and, even then, normally buy from trusted brands. The aim for Google is therefore to become part of the ecosystem, such as through Motorola set top boxes and inclusion in new TVs. However this will take time, particularly to reach a critical mass of mainstream consumers.

Thirdly, there is a lot of competition. At a basic level you can have your laptop on your knee to access programme information while you are watching or hook your PC to your TV to see downloaded or streamed programmes. The advent of the iPad has given you the chance to add a second screen to find out more information and share it with your family and friends quickly and easily. And a whole range of other manufacturers, both technology players such as Apple and Microsoft and existing electronics brands are bidding to be the portal linking your TV to the internet. Winning the trust of consumers and getting on as many platforms as possible will dictate who wins this war.

Finally, there are a number of differences between how people watch TV and surf the net. One is public and the other is (we like to think) very personal. If Google combines your online search history with your TV viewing habits to serve up personalised ads, it may not work make for harmonious family viewing. Just imagine your partner’s reaction if Coronation Street is interrupted by adverts for dubious sites that you’ve ‘accidentally’ surfed to, while on your own………….

Overall, this is shaping up to be an intriguing struggle to control the TV, but Google will need to think smart if it wants to win its place in our living rooms…………

Enhanced by Zemanta

September 2, 2011 Posted by | Creative | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment