• by Mitch Oscar , Op-Ed Contributor, February 16, 2010

Two events have catapulted 3D technology into the forefront of media professional and consumer imagination in 2010: the arrival of the theatrical box office champion of all time, "Avatar," with over $2.2 billion in worldwide sales, in which over 70% of its screen revenue was garnered from 3D ticket sales, and this year's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas with 2,000+ exhibitors, football fields of floor space, and legions of journalists and industry types scurrying around to celebrate the emergence of 3D television - and to a much, much lesser extent e-readers.

To date, most of 3D content has been witnessed through the theatrical multiplex/Imax screens. Animated features, such as "Up," "Polar Express," "Ice Age," and certainly hybrid animated/computer generated "Avatar" have garnered the majority of praise and visibility. Given the technology's popularity, media companies that own TV platforms and have benefited from the consumption of their high definition channels immediately jumped on the bandwagon with opportunistic pronouncements. The two most prominent companies have been live-sports-oriented ESPN and a documentarian joint venture between Sony/Imax and Discovery. In the near term, we should see future channel launch proclamations from purveyors of sports, concerts, live action events, video games, and of course, more 3D movie productions. However, even within this swell of enthusiasm, the question arises does the consumer need to view standard television fare, such as news, talk shows, game shows, sitcoms, how-to programs, where graphics are not the pull of the programming, on newly acquired expensive 3D capable TV sets.

What about the cost of new 3D TV sets? Americans purchase, on average, 30+ million TV sets annually. Upwards of 45% of the households in the U.S. have purchased 1 to 2 HDTV sets in recent years. Will they be willing to forego their new expensive HDTV sets, which still do not offer the plethora of high definition programming once promised, for yet another TV set that poses even more stringent programming limitation.

An aside: Hollywood ticket sales have been steadily declining over the years as has DVD sales and rentals. 2009 box office exceeded $10 billion this year for the first time thanks to ticket cost increments, not because more people were traveling to venues. Also, given the popularity of video on demand, whether pay per view, Hulu and other video destination sites, the home video markets has been declining for the last few years which at its height was $24 billion and now barely above $20 billion. I bring up these financial points because wouldn't one think that Hollywood might be protective of the current 3D movie craze and the multiplex and concession stand allure, and hamper the deployment of 3D content to the living room. A thought.

Of course, once one purchases a new technologically oriented TV set it will be necessary to repurchase compatible hardware (and possibly, accompanying subscription services) such as a DVR, which in most probability early adopters have re-purchased once before when they upgraded to high definition TV sets. Certainly a new DVD player -- maybe Blu-ray -- will be required.

Additionally, close to 100 million of the 114 million TV households in the U.S. subscribe to some form of pay TV service (cable, satellite and telco). What content will be offered in the first iteration, generic 3D format. How much will it cost. We already have experienced the confusion of purchasing a high definition TV set and realizing that either our pay TV provider did not provide HDTV programming or that it would add incremental cost during a recession. Since the filming of 3D shows requires expensive, heavy, dual lens TV cameras, who will be willing to absorb the costs. Will it be passed on to the consumer, the advertiser or both. Questions yet to be tackled.

And what about the pipes. Bandwidth constraints. Eventually, cable, telcos and ISP's will have to determine how to allocate their limited bandwidth as consumers utilize more of their services simultaneously i.e., regular TV, high definition, 3D, data, text, graphics, telephony, and broadband video. Capacity and fees for delivery will certainly affect consumption and consumer acquiescence of incremental pricing for services, customer service and unlimited convenient usage of all-one-can-eat menus.

In closing, I would like to mention vanity, comfort and convenience as possible impediments to adoption. In order to view 3D content one must wear special eyeware. Those who wear prescription glasses are doubly challenged. Romantically does one want to snuggle up to a significant other wearing funny "glasses." My understanding is that the TV sets will come with one to two pairs of glasses but require the purchase of additional eyeware - upwards of $65 - for guests or lesser significant others. Also, I imagine the necessity of sporting special eyeware would interfere with the current craze of many 15-34 years who enjoy watching TV on large screens in groups while their computers or iPhones are poised on their laps for additional commentary while the program is in progress. At present, there is not yet a standard for 3D eyeware, some manufacturer's eyeware may not work with every set. Bummer.

In the mid-'80s I ran the national TV buying group out of McCann Erickson for Coca-Cola. At that time I was responsible for the Swatch business as well. We were discussing a joint venture for a 3D experience with Swatch providing the eyeware and Coke providing the sponsorship of the content. We envisioned cardboard movie glasses - very cheap and disposable - that was more theatre trash or shoe boxed mementoes. Today's version will be high end products that are battery powered for active shuttering technology, in which the leases turn black and then clear again, really fast, in sync with the picture's alternating left eye/right eye images. More costs (extra batteries or charger) and preparation (are the glasses charged) for an evening's worth of home entertainment, whose spontaneity will be diminished if not planned accordingly.