• by Cece Forrester , May 11, 2005

DVR technology has been on the market for several years, yet current estimates put overall penetration in the United States at just 5 to 10 percent. Rapid growth is expected in the next year or two, as word of mouth finally reaches critical mass among consumers, and segments of the TV industry start to figure it out. Some have attributed the initial slow growth of TiVo to a failure to go beyond generalities in marketing the experience. And going by much of what's been said in the advertising trade press about how people use it and what to do about it, it seems there is a similar gap in understanding on the part of reporters, network heads, and agency media executives.

People who haven't experienced this new model of TV viewing and choice have trouble picturing what it does, and thus may discount its appeal. Those with a stake in the existing broadcast advertising economy resist admitting that big changes are coming. Even those making an effort to deal with the upheavals that DVRs are bringing about, still seem handicapped in their thinking by unfamiliarity with what the machines do and how they work. Statistics don't tell the whole story. If you want get a fix on the attitudes and behavior that will impact both the near and long-term future of TV advertising, you must get inside the DVR/on-demand user's experience.

This early adopter would like to set the record straight, counter some of the misconceptions about DVRs, paint a picture of what the TiVo experience is like, venture a few opinions on where TV advertising is headed as a result, and offer an idea that might be helpful in the meantime.

I have been assured by those unfamiliar with revolutionary technology like TiVo that most people won't care about it because they are content with the existing way of watching TV. But consumer control is the future of media, and any technology that offers more of it is a genie that won't go back in the bottle.

Not only are cable and satellite companies such as Comcast, DirectTV, and Time Warner rolling out their own versions of DVR and on-demand delivery, Comcast will also offer the TiVo branded service to its subscribers. Other on-demand models are being investigated as well; CBS, for instance, is looking at making selected repeats of the network's shows available after the broadcast, by the month, or by the program.

Delivery via computer is becoming a real option as well. Showtime, Bravo and SciFi are offering free online streaming of some of their series' season premieres to help build buzz; the Fox network has online downloads of entire episodes of some of its cancelled series, free or at a small charge.

Placeshifting is becoming as much a factor as timeshifting. A device called the Slingbox Personal allows transfer of content from a TV or a DVR to one's computer, and eventually other devices like cell phones and PDA's. TiVo now offers a "TiVoToGo" feature, which transfers shows between the box and a laptop PC or portable media player. And Sirius has plans to use the satellite radio service to deliver TV content to small screens for backseat viewing in cars.

It's hard to foresee the final form the benefits of these systems will take. This will be a much more complex evolution than the introduction of cable or home videotaping. There are so many kinds of devices now, that rather than the simplistic convergence scenario people used to predictin which the home computer and the TV set are combined in a single boxdevelopment will be about getting the pieces to cooperate with each other.

Many in the ad industry have reacted to the DVR revolution by declaring that the 30-second spot is dead. What is dead or on the way out are dayparts and networks, which are integral to the old TV model, but irrelevant in the new one.

Much ink in the trade press is still devoted to the effects of time slots on the chances of this or that program to succeed. Those who understand the impact of DVRs see this as an obsolescent situation. With TiVo and similar systems, an audience doesn't have to know or care what day and time a new program is on in order to record and watch it. The ability of a program to find a consistent audience (or vice versa) will no longer depend on memory, keeping up with schedule changes, or on the individual's commitments on a particular day and time weighed against the desire to see the program.

Industry news also remains focused on the traditional network model, with talk of upfronts, sweeps, shares, and who's No. 1 in primetime, continuing as if nothing has changed. While it's not time to abandon them just yet, it's important to understand that many familiar features of the TV business will not survive the consumer-control revolution in their current form.

Networks won't be dead exactly, but their role is bound to change. Until now, networks have been thought of as a "place" or a dial position, but when everyone can access programs by name alone what will a network mean to people? Once the act of "tuning in" ceases to be a framework to hang a network's identity on, it will have to take on a different role.

For now, networks are trying harder than ever to hold on to the time-competitive and dial-position model with maneuvers like starting primetime programs a few minutes early or running late, which can prevent TiVo from recording another network's program in the next hour as it discourages live viewers from channel-switching. But this can only be a short-term strategy, and could ultimately backfire in people's attitudes toward the entity that's trying to interfere with their choices. When on-demand viewing ceases to depend on recording a real-time feed with a single starting point, this will not be an option.

VCRs theoretically began to liberate us from the real-time model dating back to the early days of broadcasting, but in such a cumbersome way that they did not truly disrupt it. With TiVo and other DVRs now fulfilling the original promise of timeshifting, and as viewers learn to regard watching at their convenience as the new norm, the next phase will be one in which programs are essentially free-floating.

When that happens, the artificial situation in which a program is considered to "compete" with one or two other programs that happen to be "on at the same time," will come to an end. The idea that for a program to succeed, it must cause another good program to fail to meet an audience goal, is no longer operative. Aside from the limitations of old-style broadcast technology, can you offer a single good reason why this wasteful system ever should have prevailed? Reaching audiences is no longer a zero-sum game.

Part II of this column exploring the features and benefits of TiVo will run tomorrow.

Cece Forrester is a media planner in Chicago. She can be reached at cece@ais.net.