Digital Audiences

Changes in the media environment are as much about audiences as they are digital broadcasters, niche programme makers and high tech firms. Whilst the media and technology industries enthuse over e-commerce and v-commerce, m-commerce and t-commerce, the audience experience is transformed to suit the digital landscape. Video on demand dismantles network scheduling, and organises media content at the viewers whim, not the broadcasters. Interactivity enables a previously passive audience to become an active component in the construction of media. New technology empowers the audience; it is emancipatory, the networks must serve the audience's interest not their own. This is the hype, the reality however may be somewhat different. Whilst dramatic changes in viewing habits will doubtless occur, the promise of interactivity may prove to be rather hollow. This chapter will consider the changes in the viewing experience: A massive increase in quantity coupled with asynchronous viewing, and intelligent media 'agents'. Then the notion of interactivity will be examined; is home shopping interactivity? Finally bandwidth, one of the key concepts of the new media environment, will be analysed with regard to audience participation and interaction.

 

The Viewing Experience

Digital television and online broadcasting may offer different methods with which to access information flows, but both share some similarity in restructuring viewing habits and audiences. The vast increase in bandwidth will allow for a plethora of media content that is a far cry from 1, 4 or even 36 channel networks. An increase of available space not only allow for an increase in the range of programming, but also in the scheduling quantity. Indeed with video on demand available on line, the notion of schedule is obsolete. Even with the more limited digital television model, the increased bandwidth allows for near video on demand as the same movie can be scheduled on a 'staggered start' across several channels. Indeed as modern lifestyles increasingly disregard the traditional 9 to 5 timetable, so too must broadcasters. 24 Hour news channels have existed for some time to suit the needs of busy audiences who may not be able to wait until 6pm to see the headlines. News is just as important at 1.37am as it is at 9pm, more so as global broadcasters target audiences in multiple time zones. As personal time becomes an increasingly valued commodity in an accelerated world, audiences will not restructure their days around conventional television schedules. According to Nicholas Negroponte, broadcasting and viewing will become increasingly asynchronous. Simply put, from the audience's perspective: 'prime time is my time.'

If that is the case then audiences will surely become increasingly fragmented. The concept of the mass audience may no longer be relevant as media content is personalised and filtered to match individual needs. Broadcasting (reaching as large an audience as possible) is replaced by narrowcasting (targeting niche markets) and broadcatching (users select their own content by way of personalised filters). If this is the case then perhaps the shared media event, the program that gathers family and friends around 'the box' is extinct? Not necessarily so, argues Andy Anson of Channel Four's new media venture, E4:

'I think the social side of television, what the Americans call the water-cooler effect is going to make linear [broadcasting through channels] stick around. The value of Friends will actually go up as the value of good content becomes more and more important.'

('Screen Saver' 21/02/2000, The Guardian (New Media))

Niche programming may tap previously neglected markets, but millions still tune into Friends and ER because they are well made and expertly marketed. Furthermore an integral part of the experience of following a franchise show is being able to discuss it with friends, family, colleagues, your hairdresser etc. This is both an enhancement of the viewing experience and an essential component of the product's success. Word of mouth is after all the best publicity, and electronic word of mouth perhaps better still, as it flies faster and further. In addition to these considerations, one must remember that some media products are not as 'portable' as others. It may be advantageous to shift Friends forward an hour if planning to go out later, but real time events will continue to be sacrosanct. The big game has to be live, the ballot count equally so.

In a similar vein, the increasingly transnational nature of media distributors does not necessarily constitute a threat to the community constructed by regional broadcasting. In fact the huge increase in broadcast space, and the communicative utility of new media, may help to encourage cohesion of local community. The impetus for this is to some extent economic, as Paul Glaser of inherently non-local Real Networks describes:

'Physical community doesn't stop being important, even as virtual community becomes more accessible. Local issues matter. Local content matters. Local broadcasters aggregate local content and advertising, so I could certainly see them continuing to matter a lot, even if the infrastructure changes.'

Local people watch local news because it has an immediate relevance in their lives. New media technologies allow content to be at once globally available and locally specific. The impact of digital networks will not necessarily be to destroy localities, but rather to elasticate them.

The audience held value of quality and of relevance will no doubt become paramount as new media multiplies. As Negroponte argues: 'the prime of prime time will be its quality in our eyes, not those of some collective and demographic mass of potential buyers of a new luxury car or dishwasher detergent.' This transition to audience constructed schedules is evidenced in two new consumer technologies: The Electronic Program Guide and the Personal Video Player.

The EPG is at first glance an onscreen reproduction of a TV listings magazine, which simply provides a guide to the plethora of channels available on digital (and in some instances conventional cable). It is however more than an elaborate channel changer as it is effectively a search engine, scheduler and diary all in one. On a recent visit to the USA a friend demonstrated the system to me, and it soon became apparent how different his viewing habits were to mine. Traditionally when 'watching television' (as opposed to watching a specific programme), the user flicks from one channel to another until something grabs his or her eye. With the EPG the user can request a list of currently showing, for example, news programmes or sporting events; alternatively they may have the EPG suggest a selection based on certain preferences that the user has expressed in his or her 'profile'. Enter a name of a film or TV show and the EPG will note when it is next to be shown and can either remind the user with an onscreen alarm or instruct the VCR to record it. Digital radio is integrated to the extent that one can observe which song is playing on any network at any particular time. In the four channel world the viewer asks 'what's on next?' Using an EPG interface the question is 'what do I want to watch now?'

With the EPG the viewing experience is increasingly delineated. Whilst 'identity' channels such as MTV or CNN may command an audience that lets the network make the choices, many stations will be subjected to an increasingly transitory audience. Fear of audiences 'flicking' to other channels of potential interest may become moot as EPG's become more intelligent, making these choices automatically. Content is the decisive factor. The test for broadcasters will be to retain their identity as production 'hall marks' of assured quality. In increasingly populated media environment, big brands will no longer be able to rely upon their allocated 'shelf space' as a guarantee of audience share.

The Personal Video Recorder or PVR further upsets the traditional relationship between audience and broadcaster. Essentially a combination of PC and VCR it allows for instant tapeless recording of up to thirty hours of television, with simultaneously playback. The PVR can have a marked effect on the viewing experience: A click of the controller allows users to either watch or record the show of their choice. If the viewer is interrupted whilst watching a live broadcast, the VPR can instantly begin recording the programme and pause the on screen image. When the viewer returns the programme resumes, skipping commercials in order to potentially catch up with the original broadcast. The system allows the viewer to specify that any televised game of their favourite team, any movie starring their favourite actor or the latest episode of followed series is recorded automatically. The resultant programming is then broadcast by the PVR to the viewer's schedule. Ken Ziffren, Internet entertainment lawyer notes:

'In this context, as a viewer, I will no longer care that I'm not home on Thursday to watch Friends. I can watch it when I choose, say on Sunday night. The fact is you're creating your own schedule, at your own time. And you don't care whether it's NBC or CBS or ABC.'

The impact that such devices may have has led to accusations that PVR manufacturers, TiVo Inc and Replay Networks may destroy the traditional relationship between advertisers and networks. As Fox TV's chairman Sandy Grunshow says, 'inevitably advertisers and networks will be almost compelled to develop a new and different set of relationships to survive.' If inter programme advertising slots are increasingly negated by audience fragmentation and self scheduling, then sponsorship will logically move to the programme body itself. Interactivity in the 'click on the actor's shirt to buy it' sense will no doubt seek to make up this revenue shortfall. Alternatively broadcasters may increasingly abandon sponsorship in favour of pay per view. As Negroponte suggests they may do both; advertisement free programming at a price, advertisement heavy programming free of charge. With such imperatives, the nature of 'interactivity' must be questioned.

 

How interactive is Interactive?

In the case of DTV, the answer would appear to be 'not very'. At present interactivity appears to be shorthand for e-commerce, when ideally it would be 'e-community'. Things perhaps may not be so bad on the Internet, but for the 'picket fenced' networks of digital television interactivity is somewhat a misnomer. Is being able to order a pizza from a set top box any more interactive than responding to an on screen commercial and ordering from Domino's the old fashioned way? The DTV method essentially performs the telephone's function whilst watching TV; it may be convergence, but it is not interactivity. In some respects, using Interactive TV to shop is less interactive as it limits choice. Only businesses in partnership with Sky Open can sell to its audience. The industry joke about Open is that it is in fact closed.

Email through a television is not interactivity. It may provide some evidence of convergence, but it allows audiences only to interact with each other on a limited scale, and not at all in the broadcast process . The email service on Sky Open cannot be used to distribute file attachments (this may be possible on DTV services based on Windows CE), and users cannot 'publish' work in the same manner as constructing a website. In digital TV adspeak, a limited convergence process is continually mistaken for interactivity.

One can argue that closed systems such as DTV cannot provide interactivity, at least interactivity as something more than chat and shopping. They may transform television into a more dynamic experience, but they are still essentially single source to mass audience devices. The key to interactivity lies in IP (Internet Protocol) enabled devices, which is problematic as it represents the 'antithesis of centralised Big Media.' Television will only become truly interactive when the set is an IP configured device. Interactivity without access to the world wide web is interactivity on 'their' terms. One cannot begin to discuss the 'democratisation of distribution' if the channels of distribution remain closed to all but a media elite.

Frustratingly interactivity on the Internet is fraught with its own problems. Whilst the technological limitations of closed systems are absent, a misunderstanding of the potentials for interactivity is still prevalent amongst the corporations. Ford recently offered net users the opportunity to 'help create a Ford Focus commercial.' As Scott Rosenberg of online journal Salon quips: 'Wow! If we help create the ad spot, can we also get a cut of the ad agency's fees?' Interactivity online is still about gimmicks rather than co-operative experience. Interactivity in Ford's case would perhaps be to take the bold step of providing a forum for customers to voice their opinions, both complimentary and critical, and for the company to respond. The benefit for prospective purchasers would be the information provided by customers expressing their satisfaction (or lack of); the benefit for Ford could be invaluable market research, and the kudos gained by publicly adopting a more mature approach to criticism.

An instinctive fear of copyright theft has also led to some media organisations mishandling the notion of interactive expression. Fox have taken legal action against operators of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and X-Files fan websites, as have Paramount with Star Trek. Allegations of copyright infringement may be technically valid, but are of questionable wisdom. Fox fails to see with the Buffy case the important role fan homage plays in the sustained success of a 'cult' product. The parallel with music fanzines is clearly identifiable. Fox may point to its official Buffy site as evidence of interactivity, but fans dislike the impersonal corporate nature. Fox appear to be quite misguided: Expensive legal action may shut down a few sites, but they will surely continue to proliferate on the myriad of servers that constitute the Net. Why would Fox seek to destroy a successful marketing scheme that costs them nothing? Retransmitting shows is of course a different matter, and Fox would be well within their rights to act against it. However allowing angsty teenagers to express their vampire fixations and love for Sarah Michelle Gellar will only help to maintain audiences, and encourage the demand for Fox's syndicated Buffy merchandise.

 

Gimme Bandwidth

Whilst interactivity as a concept is confused the desire for increased bandwidth is readily identifiable at all levels of the media environment. For Internet users, dial up connections are so slow as to make video on line utterly impractical. On a 56K modem (the current home user standard), online television is a squawky, stalling, grainy affair and Internet radio not much better. The move to broadband technologies such as cable modems and DSL promises a vast improvement, as connection speeds are far faster. The slow implementation of such technologies in the UK and Europe has contributed to the more enthusiastic response to DTV at the Internet's expense. Furthermore, the reluctance of European telecommunications companies to offer unmetered call access has stifled the growth of the net in general. Indeed BT have been slow to adopt unmetered DSL, favouring the inferior per minute charged ISDN service.

Broadband is touted as a panacea for the Internet's failings: Pages will load instantly, video will stream smoothly, and CD quality MP3 audio files will be transmitted instantaneously. However there are some important considerations as to the nature of the broadband services that are available for their users, not least that an increase in bandwidth may simply encourage greater quantities of superfluous data in digital media. Not only does this apply to irrelevant video content on websites, but also the possibility of Digital TV operators compromising signal quality in order to increase channel capacity. Bandwidth may perhaps share a common characteristic with money: No matter how much you have it's never enough.

In the case of Digital Television, the incoming stream is certainly very high bandwidth. Satellite and cable networks when coupled with digital compression techniques allow for a vast increase in the amount of programming which the audience can receive. The return path is far narrower though: Sky's Open service utilises a puny 28.8K Modem connected to a conventional telephone line for the 'upstream' flow. The output capacities of the home user will be limited to the simplest processes such as email and 'click to buy' shopping. For that reason, DTV will continue to be a 'lean back' experience, whilst PC's connected to the net remain 'lean forward.'

DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) is not entirely dissimilar, with download speeds well in excess of upload speed. Indeed the term often used is ADSL; the A standing for asymmetric. Downstream flows on DSL can be up to 4 Megabits per second, whilst upstream flows are limited to 512 Kilobits per second. Whilst individual service providers may vary the ratio of upstream to downstream bandwidth, the technology assumes a greater receipt of data than output of data. That may be true for the majority of users in the current Internet environment, but it may prove an obstacle as the popularity of 'simple server' software such as the MP3 distribution product Napster grows. Coupled with a trend for web based applications and 'virtual' storage devices (keeping files on line rather than on a physical drive) may encourage a greater user demand for upstream bandwidth, a second 'broadband revolution' perhaps.

It is worth noting however, that upload speed on DSL is well in excess of anything achievable on a dialup connection. It may be asymmetric, but Internet users accustomed to the 'world wide wait' of conventional modems will only see a vast improvement in both upload and download times. In comparison to the televisual mass media age the effect is even more pronounced: The net may be asymmetric, but broadcast television is practically feudal.