Last week I was asked an interesting question from one of the Brand 3.0 group members in Linkedin.com. " Hey, Will -- welcome. I look forward to checking out your blog. Here's one thing I've been following that may be along the lines of your topic.
The branding of Hulu.
Recently, Paige Albiniak, a contributing editor for Broadcasting & Cable, reported that more than half the people who have watched Tina Fey’s uncanny performance of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live have done so online. Some 23% of those views came via YouTube, including video of news and talk shows showing clips of the skit, which NBC can’t block. Only 17% and 4% of the views took place on NBC.com and Hulu.com .
The data comes from Solutions Research Group in AdAge.
Many informed experts think people aren’t turning to Hulu – the first place I went -- because they don’t know about it. SRG does report that SNL’s recent online success has improved awareness for Hulu, boosting it to 25% of American Internet users, up from 15% in July. Meanwhile, people going to YouTube are only seeing clips of the skit instead of the whole thing because that’s the only video portal they are aware of.
In past posts, Ms. Albiniak has said “it’s silly for NBC to block YouTube from airing these NBC-branded videos because all exposure is good exposure.” Now she wants to change and say something that might be considered Internet fascism by some: “perhaps it is better to keep these popular videos off YouTube, thus forcing people to discover Hulu. It’s taking a while, but it won’t be long before Hulu is the first place they check. What’s more, once they get there I am sure they’ll go back because there’s so much content on the site and it’s so well organized.”
How would you see it from your vantage point?"
My response was as follows:
"Hi Mark:
I believe it is total nonsense. This "sit and wait" strategy seems to be the complete opposite of what's expected in TV III Branding.
Hulu surely needs some more branding, as Albiniak states in the headline of her article, but the user preference of YouTube over Hulu goes way beyond that.
From my point of view I could say that:
1. The whole brand synergy between content and catch up channel is very confusing for the "viweser". SNL airs on NBC, who shows clips at NBC.com , but who also has the show for catch up on Hulu.com . It is a three degree brand relationship that the average user is not acquainted with. Mostly because Hulu's brand is not widely known yet.
2. NBC has to do a hell lot of cross-promotion to teach the viewer the path to Hulu. It seems to me that NBC and Newscorp put all their bets on the programme's brand, completely erasing channel brands from Hulu. The viewer who lands on Hulu.com is not welcomed by familiar brands such as NBC or Fox. The user can only rely of familiar show brands, and sometimes, their favourite shows are not even being displayed on the homepage at the moment. So this network brand neutrality looks rather cold for a user who has no affinity with Hulu's brand yet. Next year, BBC, ITV and Channel 4 will release Kangaroo's online VOD service here in Britain. I'm curious to see how they'll deal with multiple network brands in the same service.
3. I've just ran a google search on "Sarah Palin Saturday Night Live" and the first result points to NBC.com . The sponsored link on the side points to " MSN.com/videos ". It speaks for itself. Hulu needs better SEO. And when you can't find it, you just go to YouTube, because it is the most trusted brand. And by the way, YouTube has just passed Yahoo as the second most popular Search Engine.
4. Don't even get me started on Hulu's interface. It is definitely not oriented for sharing. On YouTube, you don't need an extra click to copy the video's URL and send to friends. You can read users' comments right below the video. You can get related videos straight away: the Sarah Palin SNL sketch on the News, users' video replies, and so on (I've been even Rick Rolled trying to see the sketch on YouTube). YouTube is just a better media consumption experience, far ahead from Hulu.
5. Hulu has just official content. In YouTube, people serve as filters. The ratings of a particular video is in your face. And their opinions and related videos take you down the long tail, giving you an extended experience that Hulu can never give you.
So Mark, answering your question, I'd dare to say that keeping videos off youtube and just waiting for people to magically go to Hulu is not the best strategy.
Hulu is good for people like you, who know Hulu's brand and had the relationship with NBC and SNL in your head. That is why you went first to Hulu.
I hope I answered your question, and If not, hopefully I raised more doubts :)
Thanks for the opportunity to share some of my thoughts.
Best,
Will Prestes www.brandthat.tv"
Besides, Hulu is only available in the US and is not available on the iphone.
McGonigal presented the three stages of a CI-based ARG: collective cognition, cooperation and coordination (check previous post for reference).
1. Collective Cognition on TV:
Collective cognition is the collection, compilation and analysis of content, parts of a deconstructed narrative. The process of creating TV brand awareness requires similar actions. But instead of displaying fragments of a game storyline, the pieces are a series of messages forming a thread towards the consumption of the product itself. By messages I mean any touch point viewers have with the channel or programme brands, such as:
On-air promos (trails)
On-line promos (from online adverts to viral campaigns)
Off-air promos (billboards, magazines ads…)
TV Guides
EPGs/IPGs
Public Relations
The TV Channel
The Channel's TV programmes
Just like the story fragments and clues in ARGs, these brand touch points are massively distributed, and viewers have to be exposed to a certain frequency in order to take action and tune in. People will get the information from different message sources and eventually sample the channel or the show. But this is not the ultimate puzzle. This is just the beginning.
To make things easier keep one thing in mind: in this game, the goal is to develop better programming that matches perfectly the taste of the audiences.
During this phase, people exchange information. They exchange viral videos, they tell the rest of the family to shut up when the cool promo starts to air, they talk to each other about the show in a watercooler effect,
2. Cooperation on TV:
In the previous post I said "In the next stage, players presented their own hypothesis to the group of players, asking for feedback, collaboration and refinement of ideas."
At his stage people already had contact with the TV brand touch points, they've been exposed to the messages with a considerable frequency, and they have sampled the channel or the show. The engagement to a show may occur in different levels: some viewers become active fans, whilst other passively watch the show in the quietness of their homes. Fans like to share their enthusiasm with people with similar interests, so they go to online message boards, share their opinions about episodes, try to crack spoilers and sometimes even make suggestions for further plot unfoldments. Passive viewers stay at home, and a considerable part of them are the ones to push the buttons of Barb/Nielsen peoplemeters.
Meaningful amibiguity derives from the myriad of opinions about the show and it's materialised in the shape of online forum posts and audience measurement statistics. Media planners can understand the audience collective preferences looking at TV ratings, as well as establish a direct dialogue throught online message boards.
Online forum posts and TV Ratings are the cooperative materials for the next stage of this game.
3. Coordination on TV:
Ambiguity also applies to the Media planner side, as TV programming is instrinsically open-ended. Media planners (or Puppet Masters, if you like) never know for sure how the game is gonna end. Will people watch my shows? Will they tune in the channel?
Perhaps, the definite puzzle here is do enough people care about the show to keep it from being cancelled?
Similiar to ARGs, but not so in real-time, TV also applies constant re-design. Ratings give quantitive clues, whilst online posts are good for qualitative insights (sometimes focus groups, when there is time and money). The re-design can be made in three fronts:
Placement: Puppet Masters, oops, Media planners can re-schedule shows, changing positions, trying to embrance a larger audience;
Promotion: Media planners can boost promotion, trying to attract those laggards who couldn't put the pieces together fast enough in phase 1 (or who just didn't care about the approach).
Aggregation: The ultimate re-design tool. If it's a show: changes in the script, sometimes killing a character. If it's a channel: cancellation of the show, aquisition of better programming.
Naïve bees on TV
I'm not naive enough not to see that the participatory level of viewers in the TV game happens almost unsconsciusly. Audiences don't watch shows in an conscious effort to guarantee the next season.
So I'd say the main differences between ARGs and TV are:
The consciousness thing: in ARGs participation leads to a conscious result. Unless you take the TINAG (This Is Not A Game) aesthetic this far. If you do, TV is more ARG then ever.
Real-time re-design: some live shows can change due to minute-by-minute ratings, but in most cases, re-design at the aggregation level happens from season to season, unless your channel happens to be the producer. Some promotion or placement changes may be taken in a shorter timeframe.
Full collectivity: actually I've just changed my mind about this one. I was going to say that peoplemeters only measure a small sample of the audience, whilst all players in an ARG directly contribute to the C.I. But this is not true, viewers without peoplemeters in their homes or who don't post in online forums are just like regular ARG lurkers. They just watch the action, but don't actually take part in it.
So far I've compared ARGs to traditional TV programming. OK, except from some bits on internet communication. In this case, the internet only makes dialogue easier. However, I believe that there are more relevant innovations that can bring collective intelligence games closer to TV programming.
Think of when elaborate recommendation systems like Amazon's reach TV (I know TiVo's been playing with it for some time now). When all viewers are connected to some sort of internet TV, potentially, the accuracy in metrics will burst through the roof. When this huge amount of opinions are processed it forms a collective intelligence able to deliver the perfect programming for each one of the viewers. I'm talking about addressable content, where people receive a personalised bouquet of shows, based on their own preferences.
The irony in this is that the very perfectly individualised recommendation can only be delivered by a collective knowledge system.
Bees are collectively intelligent and have a hive mind
Collective intelligence goes a long way within the TV domain. In terms of media economics, we are starting to live the platform era. Not hardware, not software, but platforms. Think of facebook apps, iphone apps and Google adsense ( I'll cover this subject in detail in some other post). Now think digital TV as a platform, as a YouTube on steroids, where people can actually produce content together. This could lever new forms of participation.
Well, or perhaps I'm just tripping out here. Coincidently, the postman just dropped off my copy of Pierre Lévy's Collective Intelligence. Hopefully, I haven't butchered his theory in this post. I'll let you know after I read it.
Surprisingly, I couldn’t help noticing some resemblance between C.I. gaming and traditional television programming.
But first, let’s go over a few concepts about Collective Intelligence gaming.
McGonigal identifies 3 stages which define a game-based C.I.
1. Collective Cognition
This is the stage where players get to know the fictional world they are entering. They search, collect, compile and analise game content, putting together pieces of a story line that’s been fragmented. And eventually, once the parts are brought together, the parts reveal the central puzzle of the game. In the case of I Love Bees, this stage includes the moment where players found the flickering URL at the end of the Halo theatrical release, when they accessed the website and discovered it was hacked, when they found the timer counting down to 24 August 2004, when they found out the hidden timecodes and GPS coordinates and when they exchanged e-mails with the website’s administrator. In simple words, players where gathering data and looking for meaning.
I Love Bees in a nutshell
McGonigal points out that massively distributed content becomes a core design requirement for this type of game. The reason is simple. This strategy evokes the need for players to come forward with anything they discover, so they can exchange information and move forward together. Without collaboration, it is almost impossible to collect all the necessary clues in a viable timeframe. Massively distributed content is the key that drives collaboration.
Young Beehive Minds :)
2. Cooperation
In the next stage, players presented their own hypothesis to the group of players, asking for feedback, collaboration and refinement of ideas. In I Love Bees, players organised themselves into three different groups according to their line of thinking. The Literal Thread believed the coordinates were simple longitude and latitude defined locations, and they should show up at these sites at the time indicated by the given timecodes. The Relative Thread believed the coordinates were real locations, but the surroundings were the key for the puzzle solving. And lastly, The Numerical Thread believed the coordinates were some sort of mathematical puzzle, and once solved, they would reveal a hidden message or a graphical image. At the end, due to the lack of other evidence, the majority agreed that TheLiteralThread was the most solid approach. So the players showed up at the locations, where pay phones rang and messages were delivered.
Here, McGonigal emphasises the importance of meaningful ambiguity, which for her, it is crucial for the formation of a collective intelligence. The reasons are twofold:
a. It is a psychological device to draw players into the collective. It allows players to have different interpretations, contributing with ideas from their area of expertise. It gives players the freedom to experiment with the context, pushing boundaries at will.
b. It allows game-designers (or Puppet Masters) to present players with issues without imposing any pre-determined solutions. The game structure should be open-ended, and the puzzle ambiguous.
Coordination is essential
3. Coordination
This is basically the ability to make meaningful ambiguity to work in favour of the game. It means to have a system prepared for real-time redesign, which enables the collective mind to evolve. This sentence sounds a little bit too dense, let me see if I can exemplify it. In I Love Bees, the Puppet Masters would watch the progress of the game community in solving the puzzles (by reading their posts in message boards, for example). As the game was designed with an open-end structure, the game designers could see how far the players would go, and based on their outcome, create more elaborate puzzles for the next stages of the game. Designers could re-write the game in real-time to accommodate the increasing development of the collective intelligence within the game community.
There is a citation in McGonigal’s paper that compares this iterative process to the interaction between musicians in a Jazz band. Pure real-time improvisation based on the bits and pieces of information gathered along the performance.
McGonigal defines this real-time responsiveness as the “true power of a puppet-mastered search and analysis game”. The cool thing is that even if you are a player or a game designer you can be surprised at anytime. It is full-time fun. Any initial expectations can be surpassed.
Hey, this post got a lot longer than I had expected. So I’ll split it into two parts, and do the comparison in the next one. In this meantime, feel free to throw in any ideas on how C.I. gaming and traditional TV programming share commonalities.
About ten days ago I got a message from Mariana Bettio on gtalk. Mariana is a search content producer for Times Online, and a long time friend. She said she had an extra ticket to the Social Media Camp 2008, a BarCamp event that was being sponsored by Murdoch's companies, including the Times itself. I had a quick look on their website and everything was quite new to me. The premise is complete collaboration: go and contribute somehow. I said I could present something about TV III Branding. She said "great".
The thing is I had never been to a BarCamp event before. No idea about the people who attend these events. As I had about a week to prepare my presentation, I said "why not?" Of course, knowing that I'd leave it to the last minute.
Opening speech by organiser Vero Pepperrell
The venue was quite nice: Wallacespace St Pancreas. A place with many small conference rooms spread over a revamped three-story Victorian building. I was promptly received by a smiling team of volunteers who instructed me to decorate my badge with colour markers and shiny stickers. Too many sticker options, but I sticked (no pun intended) to three blue monkeys making funny poses (I found later they were a rather popular choice).
I went downstairs to a large room that looked somewhat like a hospital refectory: mint floor, turquoise pale chairs, white walls and apparently the room was squeaky clean. The first impression was dissolved by a contrasting living room on a corner, forming a cosy little fortress of wicker furniture, beige cushions and a 47" plasma TV. In the background, a tall glassy wall that encompassed the second floor, in a loft style. Breakfast was being served on a table adjunct to the wall. Even when the event sounds very "indie", the formula big sponsors = good food prevails.
Most people had their laptop open in front of them, making last minute adjustments to their presentations or twittering like maniacs (a practice that lasted through the whole day. And I tell you, it is addictive). And then I saw the board. A collage of four A3 white cardboard sheets, with a hand written matrix of time slots and rooms available for anyone who'd dare to put up a post-it note informing the session to be presented. I was a first timer, so I picked a small room. I had no idea if people would show up to my session, but hey, who cares, at least I was giving it a go.
The session board around 9:30 AM
As the clock approached 10AM, all the slots were pretty much full. Funny it was to realise that even within a very friendly environment, being a rookie has its drawbacks. A few minutes after I chose my time slot and room, someone named Chris Applegate filled the following slot with a session named "If you are in marketing or advertising you should kill yourself right now". I thought "fuck, this is why people leave it to the last minute, so they can strategically pick their time slots in order to make their point over someone else's thoughts". But to be honest, the idea was somewhat challenging. At least I knew someone would attend to my session. Even if it was to rhetorically destroy me. I pictured a beautiful blonde, blue eyes, pretty smile, maybe even married with children… But as it turned out, Chris was a bloke. A nice chap actually. I attended his session afterwards, that ended up being about the dos and don'ts of online marketing.
When you are too much into TV Branding you start seeing TV idents everywhere
(The Dog Leg room in smclondon08)
I came out alive from my presentation. I was quite happy though, people showed up. Even with six other sessions happening simultaneously. I attended some other elucidating presentations throughtout the day: how to write awesome headlines (Tom Whitwell), how to use linkedin to get a better job (Julius), Alternate Reality Games (Melinda Seckington), and finally, Mari's session with the intriguing title: "Man Boobs, Incest, Sarah Palin and how The Times does SEO". It was a big hit. Get a larger room next time!
Mariana said that, for some strange reason, Pakistani are the champions of "Man Boobs" online search
The day finished with beer & wine celebration. I had the chance to chat with some cool people, and even find a potential cousin I didn't know I had, who currently lives in Amsterdam. The world is definitely as big as a thimble.
The final verdict: it was totally worth it.
I survived my first BarCamp. Looking forward to the next ones.
The past posts talked about how aggregation affects TV III Branding.
Aggregated content should be Textually Extendable, meaning content buyers should look for programme rights which allows them to explore and extend the story to other formats and platforms. The example presented was Rachel Blake’s videos from ABC’s Lost.
On top of that, content buyers should also be aware of Unbundablecontent, meaning the kind of show which is structured in a way that it could be either watched/purchased as a whole, or as smaller fragmented clips. Pretty much the way single audio tracks are sold separate from CDs on iTunes. BBC 3’s The Wrong Door was presented as a contemporary example.
Findable and Accessible content is another attribute that impacts on TV III Branding. Basically, it is crucial to acquire content with proper metatags so people can find the content they want easily. Having access to programmes is also fundamental. It’s gotta be easy to find, easy to buy and easy to watch, even for people with disabilities. I commented on some TiVo features in the post.
And finally, in order to build brand equity to the TV Channel, content buyers should look for programmes that share the same brand values as the network’s, in other words,Brand Compatible content. You’ll find cool clips from Dexter and Breaking Bad in that post.
The Recap Cop says: “Now that it's all cleared, go home to your family and watch some good telly”.
Shows must share brand value commonalities with the aggregating network to better build brand equity.
There is nothing new here, really. The compatibility of brand attributes between programme and TV network has been a fundamental element since TV II. Animal Planet acquires and commissions shows about wild life, and not about how to pimp your ride. That is quite obvious.
Niche channels have an advantage. It is easier to focus brand efforts, as your brand knowledge (identity and awareness) is pretty much built on the kind of programming you air. Of course, it requires the right amount of placement and promotion, but still, it is a lot more “concrete” to brand a niche channel than a general entertainment channel. But you always have the Discovery Channel, which pushes the boundaries a little further, moving the brand focus away from its product, and doing something more “abstract”, more emotionally connected, more like a lovemark (I’ll discuss Lovemarks in further posts).
I’d risk to say that the bottom line is that the tightest is the match between the brand values of a programme and a TV Network, the harder it is for another network to appropriate their brand equity. I’ll exemplify this.
Dexter Promo on Showtime
Take Dexter, for example. A drama series about a pseudo-morally-driven serial killer who works for the Miami police department as a blood spatter analyst. The show has a lot of blood and violence, some sex, and skewed morals that make us suddenly realise we are rooting for a butcher to successfully get away with slaughter. Brilliant, isn’t it? I really enjoy the show, as I often get morally disturbed by it. But see, the thing with Dexter is that it is not the kind of show that could be associated with any network brand. Showtime, the American network which produces the show, surely can do it. Dexter is aired by Showtime, a premium subscription cable channel, which in America they can do pretty much what they want in terms of sexuality and violence. Not only that, the show is very innovative and edgy. From the opening titles to the way it manipulates the audience to sympathise with the lead character, Dexter is pure TV art. Nothing bad for a network that competes head to head with HBO. All these brand attributes of Dexter (innovation, edginess) are transferred to the Showtime brand. The same way The Sopranos did to HBO, as you can read in Rogers et al.'s book and in Cathy Johnson's paper. Other networks are joining the game, like Mad Men’s AMC, which recently launched a show with the same defying moral aspects as Dexter’s called Breaking Bad, a show about a 50 year old chemistry teacher who is diagnosed with lung cancer and decides to get control of his dull life by smoking pot and cooking crystal meth in order to leave a decent legacy for his soon-to-be-born second child. Genious, innit? However, is the end of family principles the future of TV plots as we know it? My girlfriend finds it too violent and too disturbing. I just don’t mind. For me, it is great TV. The only problem is that now I have to watch it solo on my iphone in the tube, instead of watching it on the bedroom TV set.
Breaking Bad Promo on AMC
Well, back again, programmes transfer brand equity to Networks, just like The Sopranos did to HBO, and Dexter did to Showtime, and Mad Men did to AMC. But the reverse is also true. I believe AMC transferred some brand equity to Breaking Bad, in a sense like “Oh, this is the new show from the same network as Mad Men, let’s check it out!”. At the end of the day, we are looking for shows and networks to exchange good equity in an old fashioned well-planned healthy brand orgy. :)
But let’s get back to the word appropriation. And this too is better understood when exemplified. Follow this trail: Dexter is produced and aired by Showtime Networks. Showtime is owned by the giant CBS Corporation. CBS is a media conglomerate who owns the terrestrial CBS channel. Dexter becomes a big hit in the US. CBS decides to add Dexter to their terrestrial schedule. Now, hold your horses right there. A violent show like Dexter on free-to-air American television? So CBS goes: “Ok, let’s schedule it late after the watershed and every time Dexter raises his scalpel we cut right there and remove the segment with the blade sinking in someone’s face. On top of that, every time Sergeant Doakes tells Dexter ‘I’m watching you motherfucker’ we change it to ‘I’m watching you motherlover’” (I swear to Dawkins CBS did that).
Dexter Promo on CBS: "He's got killer good looks…" - How desperate is this? Blimey!
Bottomline: CBS can get an audience, but they had to butcher the show, killing its most valuable aesthetic appeal, and surely not adding much to the CBS brand in the long run.
Now, take a look at the FX channel in Britain. FX is owned by Murdoch, and Murdoch does not own CBS, nor Showtime (“yet”. Who knows? The old man is hungry.) FX is not premium, nor subscription. It is cable. But hey, here is Britain. And FX pursues the same edginess in content as the American premium channels. Dexter is perfect for the FX’s schedule. So FX buys Dexter, and promotes it with excellency through a viral campaign that gives viewers the chills even before watching the show (Google up Dexter’s Hit List or wait for the post on the subject in this very blog).
So here is the brand equity appropriation I mentioned before. Dexter transfers to FX the same brand values developed by the synergy between Dexter and Showtime. Do you follow? This is different, compared to CBS. Dexter not only drives ratings, but also build brand equity to the FX brand in the long term.
Brand equity appropriation can reach highly creative levels. Mostly in the form of textual appropriation (check Caldwell’s book). I remember watching BBC 1's Breakfast News a few days ago where they showed a whole interview with part of the casting from Channel 4's new reality show The Family. There it is! BBC appropriating Channel 4's text. It may look subtle, but there is some brand equity transfer going on. Am I becoming brand paranoid?
Well, this post ends the series about Brand Equity through Aggregation. Next, I'll talk about building Brand Equity in TV III through Placement.
One of the TV III’s most diffused characteristics is its quasi-infinite content inventory. Technically, every video or film ever made, after being properly digitised, could be available to the audiences [I said technically, not economically].
Abundance is a little bit of a paradox. It is wonderful when you have a movie in mind, and you can be a 100% sure that it is within your reach somewhere out there in the digital world. It is a liberating feeling, indeed. On the other hand, when you have no clue of what you want, too many options can become overwhelming. And when your head starts calculating the cost of opportunity for each option, your mind goes down a spiral of pros and cons, and just like that, the fun is gone. The act of choice becomes so exhausting that it wipes away all the psychological benefits that could derive from the perfect picking. Barry Schwartz talks about choice fatigue in his book “The Paradox of Choice”.
Cutting to the chase, if you are acquiring digital content for your TV channel, you want to make sure that this content comes properly tagged with all the information necessary for viewers to find the shows, as well as for the shows to find viewers.
The trick is done by this little thing called metadata, or in other words, data of data. Metadata carries all relevant information about a digital TV asset (e.g. a drama series episode), attaching to the digital file things like the name of the show, the synopsis, the casting, the genre, the resolution (e.g. HD), production details, so on and so forth.
However, metadata itself is not the GPS device of television content. It is basically the full address and a little more, but you still need google maps and a computer to find it. You need digital agents that make use of metadata to do the things you want. You can find a good application of metadata and agents on your television EPG (Electronic Programme Guide), or a much more advanced example on PVRs like TiVo or Verizon FiOS [both services not available in the UK. Here, we have to stick to Sky +, which is, as far as I know, not even close to the user experience offered by its American counterparts].
If you own a TiVo (and thanks to metadata) you can search content by different criteria: title, genre, actors, you name it. And if you allowed TiVo to observe your viewing behaviour, it can recommend and record shows that you are likely to enjoy (this is why I said before that, through metadata, content can also find users). Check the video below to learn more metadata-based features on the TiVo PVR [as I don’t want you to think I’m sponsored by TiVo, you can later also watch this video about the Verizon’s FiOS Programme Guide. The guy mentions a few things on usability, a theme I intend to cover sometime in the future. I suggest you to skip to 3:30, which talks about the search features].
So far, this covers the findability part. Regarding accessibility, if you think about it, it is not enough for people just to find content, they also need access to it. You can see it in 3 different ways, I suppose. One has to do with placement, and we will discuss it later. But pretty much, it is the AmazonUnbox feature of TiVo. You can FIND content through TiVo, but if it is not available in the schedule of any channel, you can have ACCESS to it through the AmazonUnbox on-demand service. Accessibility regards format. And it has to do with aggregation. When you buy content, you want to make sure it already comes in the proper formats for all distribution platforms you have planned. So people can have ACCESS to the right format in their favourite platform. The third possibility has to do with viewers with special ACCESSIBILITY needs. It includes simple things as close captions, but can get as complex as the automatic rearrangement of the interface to better suit impaired viewers’ needs.
I’ve just found out this book about Digital TV and Metadata that talks about the application areas for Digital TV personalisation. The authors divide digital TV personalisation into three areas:
Broadcast A/V content, which includes:
Searching and filtering available TV programmes;
Matching consumer profile to programmes (via available content metadata);
Matching consumer profile to content parts and delivering customised compilations (e.g. personalised news).
Value-added Content, which includes:
Content adaptation for consumer groups or individuals (e.g. delivering sponsored content to a specific consumer demographics)
Value-added Context, which includes:
User interface adaptation for consumer groups or individuals. (e.g adaptable user interface complexity for impaired user groups)
I don’t really believe that anyone is distributing or acquiring content taking all these aspects into consideration yet. But if a TV Channel wants to offer the best viewing experience to their audiences, and hence add value to its brand, these findability and accessibility attributes must be definitely sought after.
The next post will discuss brand compatibility of aggregated TV content. Stay tuned. :)
Hulu's interfaceMy response was as follows:
"Hi Mark:Besides, Hulu is only available in the US and is not available on the iphone.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v0j5hTITQi8q8v1Qf6GoEcv3oL4OOfjoiHSZQvo1qceyG-qrShjXk_FLvRW-Hi4HRgL0frN_ggb__IU218fkeBOGxEvWkOSu4w0g6TWbC0TcS7Gc_Jz1xlDWrApkZrIrP-piS-16DLVIiJZRr-NpA=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tSODX-DyjF72OeoFHqHg-LFgC_FIny_TwgRMAPqiR0jEx_DJsjlP3wk1ls7zmcXZHBxUnQrQb8aMrRlAPNrRA93j7ohiv2EK66UodDPk77segt-5RcNMyKLqPDOWuUvnPPVcknaP8yXaOtK7Qp-HjX=s0-d)
.jpg)
