Commentary

We Want Our TV Apps, But Only the Ones We Already Know, Owners Say

by Steve Smith , Staff Writer, August 4, 2011

Hulu

The age of the app is upon us, and it is creeping to the TV set. Even as we wait for Google TV and Apple TV finally to activate Android and iOS app on their respective devices, connected TV sets are picking up momentum and may be capturing viewers' hearts with their built-in apps. According to a new ethnographic study by Strategy Analytics of a dozen owners of connected TVs in the U.S. and UK, app love actually does creep up on you in the living room. None of the people studied in this intensive, in-home research had purchased their new TVs with app-capability in mind. Price, picture quality, screen size and technology all trumped apps as determining factors.

And yet, once these connected TV owners started using the app, they embraced the platform and within six months were not willing to give up the feature.

It turns out that this is good news for familiar media brands and not so much for the Web upstarts that see connected TV as a way to acquire new viewers. Overwhelmingly, this group relied on apps from brands they already knew from other platforms like the web and smartphones. The most popular TV apps were Pandora, Hulu Plus, Netflix, YouTube and the BBC iPlayer.

But more than familiar, the TV apps had to be lean-back experiences. Highly interactive but otherwise ubiquitous services like email and even Facebook did not fare well. Not surprisingly, people don't want to type on their TV and the only social media that interests them is connected to media.

Analyst Kevin Nolan says part of the challenge in the TV app universe is that people still don't know what these things are and how they work. "Consumers want to know, 'where is 'Family Guy?' where is 'Doctor Who?' and the TV app interface doesn't help them to intuitively find what they are looking for. It's little surprise then that they default back to using apps/services that they are familiar with from their smartphone or PC experience."

In fact, the presence of apps on TVs may not change behaviors quite in the way we might think. The researchers found that "apps did not alter how much they watched, or even what they watched, it simply provided them with more flexibility to watch their content when and how they wanted," says Nolan. And that is what people are really after - flexibility, not discovery. "The DVR removed the need to schedule TV around their lives," he adds. "Now on-demand access has removed the need to even record content. This flexibility is what they said they could not give up after having it."

But where does this leave the rest of the online video ecosystem if viewers aren't using the platform to discover new content? Nolan advises that content providers not mistake distribution for marketing. Getting onto the TV with an app is not the challenge; giving people reasons to use it is. Nolan likens it to the early days of the Web and suggests we not repeat the build-it-and-they-will come errors of the past. "They mistakenly thought that the website WAS the marketing. In a similar manner, I think content companies are mistaking apps, on mobile or on TVs, for the marketing tool rather than simply a new delivery mechanism which still needs to be promoted."

research, television, tv, tv everywhere, video

7 comments about "We Want Our TV Apps, But Only the Ones We Already Know, Owners Say".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Zachary Weiner from CTV Advertising, August 5, 2011 at 2:39 p.m.
This is such a ridiculous article that it's a shame to be seen on Mediapost. A few facts one must consider.
1) The research was conducted on 12....Yes only 12 people. Not Nearly enough for any kind of sampling.
Who are these 12 influencers" and do they truly represent the Connected TV market at large? Is 12 really enough to get on any sort of sampling of ANY population? Unreal.
"Well we had one individual that was from the 25-40 yr old age group, so he's clearly representative of all of them" .......
2) The research was conducted literally at the birth of the connected TV movement. There an incredibly limited few Apps even available on TV that are not large brands.
It's about akin to saying in 2006 that mobile apps would have little usage aside from large brands based on 12 people that we found using them.
This is truly shameful mediapost. I would expect better.
Reply

Zachary Weiner from CTV Advertising, August 5, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.

Also- Should anybody like more valid information, please feel free to contact us at info@ctvadvertising.com

Steve Smith from Mediapost, August 5, 2011 at 3:23 p.m.

@ Zach. Responding to your note. I understand your point but ethnography is not a new approach. Its aim is quite different from quantitative work. Enthnography is a longstanding technique of sociology and anthropology that is after attitudes and deep drills into behaviors. It is not meant to be quantitative or even to do more than give a snapshot of behaviors in time. These techniques have been used in marketing and research firms for a long time with the understanding that they trade depth of understanding for breadth of demographic coverage. That the behaviors reflect early stages with the technology are a given. You will notice there are no statistics in there. What was striking was that they found the behaviors they found across everyone they talked about.

Zachary Weiner from CTV Advertising, August 5, 2011 at 3:58 p.m.

Steve,
The faults of Ethnographic research are well defined. nobody said that it's new.But there are clear reasons why it should be used far less haphazardly.

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/52/1/31.abstract

http://www.phoenix.edu/colleges_divisions/doctoral/articles/2010/09/the-problems-of-ethnographic-research.html

http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/objectivity.html

http://www.colorado.edu/education/faculty/margaretlecompte/Docs/LeCompte_Goetz_Problems_of_Reliability_Validity_in_Ed_Re.pdf

Steve Smith from Mediapost, August 5, 2011 at 4:28 p.m.

Zach. The arguments between "quants" and "quals" are longstanding, which is why I made clear in the opening this is ethnographic research and it was based on deep study of a dozen' households. I fail to see the "haphazardly" here. And there are reams of links defending and attacking both sides.

But of course I am happy to write about countervailing research you have.

I spent a decade in academia arguing this stuff and am not about to get into a methods skirmish again. Suffice to say, I value ethnographic data for the insights it makes available quant data can't. Personally I have always been a qual rather than a quant.

But I will say as a 13th subject who has lived with Apple TV, Roku, and Google TV that I concur with the general behaviors Kevin observed. My use of apps is almost exclusively tied to brands I am connected to elsewhere. I have "discovered" new media brands in these app markets on TVs only insofar as I came to know they existed. But I have yet to actually adopt one.

Zachary Weiner from CTV Advertising, August 5, 2011 at 7:17 p.m.

When phrased and reported upon in the correct manner I don’t disagree Steve. When the dual sided view of research is considered with deference to both Quals and Quans I also don’t disagree. This is my last post as I also have no intentions of a longer dialogue.

“Not surprisingly, people don't want to type on their TV and the only social media that interests them is connected to media.”

“where does this leave the rest of the online video ecosystem if viewers aren't using the platform to discover new content?”

This seems broad at the moment to use the term “People” or “viewers” rather than the “this group.” or “the researched participants“. Again, I can’t refute the ability of ethnography to make excellent studies, but much liked North Claimed and most compositionists would agree one can’t generalize the findings of an individual or group to a larger population without further study . In writing to a large audience , one must be incredibly careful about making the absolute “People” or “viewers” rather than specifying the group studied.

This where Quals and Quans need to BOTH be considered. Quals to describe the behaviors and quans to validate and expand it to the larger populace before making generalized statements.

Now, In relation to your role with these apps. Once again we see a strong subjectivity bias. While yes, YOU may not have interaction with other apps except for your personal groupings- Your age, level of adoption, socioeconomic group may be playing a role that is differently effected than others. It seems counter to the knowledge that the #5 most downloaded App on Samsung’s platform is how to tie a tie. While I can’t speak on engagement with this app, that would seem to show some adoption no? Or Vtuner radio perhaps? Also not a name brand, yet widely downloaded and utilized.

Mark Cerasuolo from Pelennor Technologies, August 8, 2011 at 1:03 p.m.

"...only 12 people. Not Nearly enough for any kind of sampling"

Zach, in quantative marketing research one of the first things we learn is that obsession with sample size is a common misconception. Variance (heterogeneity) of the target population has a lot more effect than sample size, and determination of sample size depends more on the variability within the sample and not how large it is. That's quoting the textbook.

Steve, my background is marketing anthropology and I'd like to ask more about your ethnographic methods. I've noticed that when marketers talk ethnography, they ofter really are referring to passive observational methods rather than interacting socially to get to core cultural traits, while in anthropology it implies a mix of observation, interviewing, surveying/census and mapping techniques. Can you talk about that a bit? Thanks!