• by June 21, 2002

Michael Tchong and Jeffrey Graham read each other’s “opening salvos,” then engaged in the following exchange. The moderator was Andrew Madden, founder and editor of thealarmclock.com, a new online and print publication focusing on the intersection of culture and technology.

Madden: Let’s start with some definitions. What does the term convergence mean to each of you? Tchong: Traditionally it’s always meant the mating of television with any other medium, but particularly the Internet, and providing people with some linked content. The interactive television people had their vision that this would be a separate virtual private network. But by the time they had invested millions of dollars in the full-service network, they realized that it wasn’t closed networks that people wanted but open ones. And as a result the Internet took a lot of wind out of the sails of these folks. That’s partly why the term convergence fell out of favor.

Graham: When people use the term convergence, they mean having multiple media streaming through one platform—and being used primarily through that platform. I think it reflects what we are used to—having one glowing box in the livingroom that everyone gathers around.

Madden: I think we may need to make a distinction between content and the platform on which we view, listen to, consume that content. Jeff, are you saying that devices and platforms are diverging but content is converging?

Graham: It’s all converging as bits; it’s all digital. And that allows it to be combined, separated and served on multiple divergent platforms or just on one platform. But when we talk about whether things are going to converge, generally I think of whether it’s all going to be in one place. I think everything’s going to be disassemblable, and it will be disassembled in a lot of ways. Tchong: Also, you have to think about whether we are a highly fragmented society and take our media in a variety of platforms. I’m not talking about convergence of choice—there is no convergence of choice. Convergence means a single means of getting our multiple media, but with a multiplicity of choices. In fact, the multiplicity of choices will explode logarithmically as we converge even more.

Madden: Let’s circle back to the original meaning of convergence, which was the idea that somehow the PC and TV would unite and that the content would be interchangeable. Michael, you talk about the success that’s had in Europe, where they have greater deployment of digital television. Do you see that coming across the Atlantic?

Tchong: I think it’s in the U.S. already. There’s “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” and “Big Brother.” ABC just announced they’re doing a simulplay with the Emmys. It may not be in the same box yet, but there are parallel paths that are leading together.

Graham: Well there's no doubt that broadcasters are trying to find new ways to engage viewers. But the type of interaction that is available is a far cry from any notion of convergence, or divergence for that matter.

Tchong: There’s no doubt in my mind that within five years you will be interacting with your television on a regular basis.

Graham: Well, I already am interacting with the television by switching the channels. But television for me is defined by the nature of being a broadcast technology and having something, basically content, beamed at a certain time. I would like to have greater control over that content.

Tchong: Then you’re asking for interactivity. That’s the very nature of convergence. Convergence requires a redefinition of people’s habits. People’s habits for 50 years have been to watch television passively. It can change dramatically once people get used to the whole concept of interacting with content.

Graham: One thing that’s probably for sure is that I’m not going to want to interact with my television the same way that you’re going to want to interact with your television. When I say I don’t want to interact with my television, it doesn’t mean I don’t want to interact with the content that I’m used to getting or that’s going to be developed. But I’m not sure that I want it to be a television. I’d like it to be something that fits my own lifestyle and something that’s flexible to meet whatever needs I have. I’d like to assemble content in ways that might be interesting only to me and to assemble it across different platforms and different devices in the home and at work.

Madden: What will convergence and divergence mean to media buyers and planners, in terms of inserting advertising messages into media?

Tchong: Convergence is going to teach media planners a completely different strategy, because there is an interactive play that is particularly interesting. You’ve got the “lean forward” of the Internet and the “lean backward” of television. And as the two merge, perhaps creating ads that are aimed at a passive audience is going to change. So as a media buyer, the thing I want to learn is how are people viewing content on early convergent platforms, how are they interacting, what’s their traffic pattern and how does that vary from the norm? The average household that’s playing along with “Millionaire” is playing along for about 45 minutes, is playing with two people per household—so there’s an opportunity there to do very strong familial type marketing that is particularly well suited to that audience. Of course, the game-playing mentality is very strong. And “Big Brother” is a peeping tom type show that appeals to a certain element. What’s early convergence telling us about these people? The laggards are not going to profile the same way. So as a media buyer and planner, I would like to see how my early markets respond and how I adjust my marketing to suit the laggards as they come down the pike. Graham: I think the whole discipline of media planning changes—and has already changed. The audience, the customers, have individual control to shut out messages. So you no longer have a captive audience. Secondly, you no longer have a mass audience; so it’s not about taking one message that is relevant to a huge group of people and serving that message up. You have to learn how to serve up messages that are relevant to individual people. The messages in themselves have to have value. So it’s no longer about piggybacking off valuable content; the advertising or messaging itself has to be of interest and has to inspire. And finally, the media planners and buyers have to know how personalization works, how messages can be personalized and made relevant, and how they work on these diverging platforms that are becoming increasingly a part of our lives.

Want to engage in the debate? Email your comments to convergence@mediapost.com.