Commentary

Being Their

In some recent posts, I've made the case that television is simply becoming video, and that distinctions between traditional TV platforms and newer ones will soon begin to fade. I'm starting to think I was wrong. But I was also right. I was wrong, because there are some unique aspects to each platform that create different user experiences. I was right, because most end users (consumers) don't necessarily regard those platforms the way we industrial users (advertisers, agencies, distributors and content creators) do.

This has been clear from a body of consume research throughout the multichannel TV boom. While we in the industry placed a great deal of attention on the distinctions among broadcast, cable, satellite and telco TV, the viewer merely distinguished his or her TV experience by the type of content received. In other words, it's the programming, stupid. Occasionally, the programming came to represent a platform. That was clearly the case in the early marketing of seminal cable TV service HBO, or even in Warner Amex's "I Want My MTV" push/pull campaign that pushed consumers to contact cable operators to get access to the fledgling music video channel.

advertisement

advertisement

Early on, CNN and ESPN were also seen as "cable" programming services, but other than these early vertical plays, cable was mostly perceived as second-tier television: a mix of old off-network shows, and mediocre first-run wannabes. But as the quality of cable programming services evolved -- especially with the wave of special interest channels that blossomed in the '90s -- and began to proliferate, distinctions between broadcast and cable programming began to blur and television platforms were more an issue of availability, economics, and quality of reception. Consumers no longer perceive MTV, ESPN or HGTV as "cable" channels. They're just channels accessed via cable, satellite, telco, and, increasingly, online connections.

The reality is that consumers have become their own programming services, and they toggle between platforms to create their own mix and to schedule it when and where they want to. The big distinctions now are time and place: when programming is viewed and whether it is live or time-shifted; and what screen it is viewed on. As new distribution channels become more ubiquitous and improve both their connectivity and content mix, this pattern will accelerate, obliterating any notions we've ever had about scheduling. This is pretty much the case TNS Media Intelligence chief Steven Fredericks makes in his new book "StrAdegy," in which he suggests biases surrounding platforms will disappear and content will become defined primarily by its format: text, audio, video, etc.

Fredericks is right, of course. But he's also wrong -- just like me. There are distinctions between media platforms -- video included -- that go beyond the commonality of content. And that is what the new art of communications planning is really all about: defining those distinctions and optimizing content and message to deal with the nuances of each user experience. The problem is that the user experience will vary not only based on the nature of the platform, but also on the nature of the user experiencing it. It's a multidimensional view of media consumption, and it makes me glad that I don't actually have to plan or manage that process, and that I only have to write about it from time to time. This process is the greatest challenge Madison Avenue faces. But it is also its greatest opportunity. Agencies and marketers that figure out how to use platforms and content to connect with consumers in the most relevant ways will win. Those that do not, will either be ignored or worse.

Making matters worse, this multidimensional view of channel planning is no longer relegated simply to content format, but is transcendent and is more about the time, place and nature of the consumer experience than the physicality of any medium. This became abundantly clear during a recent discussion on the role of consumer insights and strategic planning during the Advertising Research Foundation's Audience Measurement conference in New York. And especially in a presentation made by Universal McCann consumer insights guru Graeme Hutton, showing how the Interpublic shop gleans these distinctions among consumers and applies them. The process is quite remarkable, abandoning traditional quantitative measures such as syndicated and proprietary surveys, or qualitative approaches like focus groups. Instead, UM effectively makes the medium the message, producing the equivalent of a reality TV show to understand how consumers might, well, watch a reality TV show, or consume other forms of media for that matter.

Hutton calls the process "imMediate Future," and it's unlike any form of "media" research I've ever witnessed. Groups of consumers are assembled into teams who compete to conduct their own research, glean their own insights and develop their own strategies for communications plans aimed at reaching people just like themselves. What was most revealing about the snippet I saw during the ARF conference was the differing ways that seemingly similar consumers looked upon the role of the same media. While one 20-something male defined his media experience via television, another looked on the medium with disdain.

But UM's approach is not simply about paradoxes. It's about arming good strategic planners with insights to develop strategies for understanding these distinctions and talking to a multidimensional consumer marketplace. And the best way to do that, suggests Hutton, is by getting inside their heads. By, in effect, becoming them.

With apologies to the late, great author Jerzy Kosinski, it's more like "Being Their" than "Being There." (If that's too cryptic for you, go read the book. It's still a great one.)

Okay, so now that I've completely contradicted myself, let me defend myself by suggesting that life in the media business -- especially television -- is now all about contradictions. And perhaps most important, in understanding how to apply them.

The reality is that some television platforms will continue and may always retain their "platformness." The Super Bowl will always be the Super Bowl. And watching it in real time via a big broadcast network will always be a special, communal television experience. But increasingly, people will begin to experience it differently as a result of the platform they are using. This has not been evident if you've been receiving the Super Bowl via broadcast, cable, satellite or telco, other than the level of the picture quality and whether you were watching it in high-def. But it has become abundantly clear if you've been watching the Super Bowl in recent years over a DVR-enabled television system and replayed great TV spots, or on-field action, including that of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake.

Increasingly, even the Super Bowl will become defined by its platformness, as people begin to experience it differently on computer screens and hand-held, mobile devices. And if you want to understand the future of television, you'd better start understanding that.

Lastly, I'd like to thank regular Monday TV Board columnist Lydia Loizides for giving me the opportunity to weigh in with these thoughts today, as well as Lydia's Mila Catherine Elizabeth, who became one of the medium's newest end-users Sunday -- all 7 pounds and 15 ounces of her.

Next story loading loading..