Home >
So far I've talked about how I actually use Social Media, and next week I fully intend to continue with that. But right now I'm really hyped about how several ideas in my life are converging right now, so I thought I'd take a left turn at Albuquerque and look at those ideas and what they have to do with how I'd like to be using Social Media.
The Ideas
1. Connected TV Widgets
First, I came across this press release by Yahoo! detailing an expanded roll out of their Connected TV Widget technology and announcing that the Widget SDK, or WDK as Yahoo! calls it. Just to summarize, Connected TV Widgets are similar to the Widgets that go on the desktop of a Vista or Windows 7 PC or an OSX Mac, only it's on your TV. I'll tell you, when I read this press release I was so excited I could spit, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why at first.
2. Facebook Games
The next thing that happened is that I did follow through on the half promise I made in last week's Developer Diary to try a Facebook game. I chose a game at random from among the myriad requests from my friends that I usually ignore. I'm half ashamed to say how much time I've spent engaged in this kind of "research," but I'm really glad that I did–I understand a lot more about how these games work and how they tie into every developer's dream of monetizing his/her killer app.
3. Some Freaking Amazing "Who Dat"
Finally, to the extent that I am a football fan at all, I am a fan of the New Orleans Saints. I'm not just saying that because they finally won the Super Bowl. The very first pro football game I watched all the way through on purpose was when the Saints played the Rams for a playoff berth in 1983. So I'm sure you can well imagine what I was doing Sunday afternoon when I would normally have been publishing my InsideRIA article.
The thing is, I live in a relatively small town and our friends who hosted the Superbowl party have DirectTV. What this means is that our local channels aren't available but, because the network that showed the game has a local affiliate (local-ish–New Orleans, as luck would have it), DirectTV can't or won't allow access to the channels in larger markets that we might have tapped into to see the game. What this meant is that we had to watch the game in a tiny corner of one of the stations that aggregates 6 games at once. And at the top of the screen, there was "Press Select to Play the Axe Hair Challenge," which no one was remotely tempted to do.
Put them in the mixing bowl with some King Cakes
So, yesterday, when I was going through my annual ritual of decorating and mailing out the King Cakes I'd made for my best clients yesterday before the game, I started thinking about why that ad was so "not tempting," and what could have persuaded me that I was interested in clicking it.
Social games can be a little fishy...
And I started thinking about how there are several things I really want for my Fish World aquariums that can only be bought with Fish Bucks. And right now, it seems that there are two main ways you can get fish bucks. One is by leveling up. The frustrating thing is that you don't get fish bucks on every level up–more like every second or third one–and you usually just get one fish buck when you do. The second is that you can buy something or complete a survey, which no doubt will sign you up to be spammed until you change your email address. I am very suspicious of these offers, especially after reading about how unscrupulous some of the game companies can be. But it occurred to me I'd be quite happy to take the Axe Hair challenge for a fish buck or two.
I'll come back to that thought in a minute, because, though that might tempt me, I am not really representative of the target audience for the SuperBowl. Sorry–I tend to think in spirals, and, since this is written sort of "stream of consciousness," expect it to loop back on itself a few times.
Fantasy Football
So then I started thinking about my friend, Stephanie, who probably is part of the target demographic for the SuperBowl. Ok, so demographically we're fairly similar–grew up in the same town, we're the same age, and we both married Brits we met on the Internet. But the big difference between her and me is that she is an avid fantasy football player. And wouldn't she just love to get information, right there on the screen, about how the players on her team are doing while she watches the game.
Ya, so it turns out I'm not the only person thinking like this. Luckily, the person who thought of it first isn't just learning now about Connected TV widgets. Instead, RallyCast has pioneered the development of multiple Connected TV widgets, including RallyCast Fantasy Sports. And they've lined up a sweet deal with Samsung and Best Buy where, if you buy a Samsung Series 7100 or better HD TV from Best Buy, you get a season pass to the Fantasy Sports service for free. This is clearly intended to promote this TV as the sports fan's TV, but I wonder if RallyCast might not have been wiser to cast in their lot with Vizio, whose TVs have remote controls with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard and game controls. This makes it easier to use RallyCast's sophisticated features, such as inline chat.
Truly Interactive TV?
That got me thinking...Could I click on a player in a game and get instant stats on him? Or, if I were watching CSI Miami, could I have a widget that lets me see additional clues in a scene, like, I don't know, a black light overlay? It turns out that the technology isn't there yet. Not only can we not interact with the broadcast video, but we don't even know much about what's playing at the moment (the relevant comment is at the very end, in answer to a question).
How ya gonna keep them down on the farm, after they've seen TV?
So that brings me back to what we can do. As far as I know, there is nothing in the world stopping a tie-in where, for instance, someone gets an access code from a California Cow commercial and plugs it into Farmville to get a branded California cow on their farm. After all, the disappointed runner-ups need to go somewhere. And, for broadcast media, this would be advertising gold. They would be able to get specific metrics on what users are actively doing as a result of a specific ad spot. Yes, people could give the code to friends who are not watching, but it would be simple to prevent that by time limiting it.
Then I can imagine that someone might tune into Dirty Jobs specifically because of a Farmville announcement that the ad with the code would be running that night, and the audience would actually be motivated to sit there and watch every commercial in case the ad with the code comes on. Farmville has millions of active participants, so this might make every ad spot during the show more valuable. In a time where broadcast advertising is competing with other venues, such as social media, both venues could benefit by cooperating.
I think this is an idea that hasn't resonated yet with broadcasters and advertisers, or there would be a huge push to make such a connection more direct. Maybe there is, in the background, but if there is, they're not letting it slip.
I think that broadcasters should be looking for ways to motivate viewers to stick around and watch the commercials if they want to survive, and I think the huge explosion of social games indicates that there are many consumers who will invest quite a lot of effort in acquiring whatever virtual good they're hankering for today. But how much sense does it make for them to turn away from the TV, jump on the computer, and get immersed in their game? Instead, they should be able to interact directly with the commercial, add the item in the background to their online profile, and continue watching. This means that TVs need to be able to provide direct interaction with the programming that's on now, and they may not have a long window to get this technology up and running before people shift their viewing habits even further from TV.
Every Little Helps
I can envision a TV experience where I'm watching Martha Stewart and I quickly pull up a widget that knows what she's cooking and tells me about the gourmet store that has the hard-to-find ingredients and how much they cost there. Facebook already supports inexpensive location-sensitive advertising, and I think FourSquare does as well.
The large networks have typically ignored local businesses, except to the extent that they allow local stations to insert their own ads in network programming. But television ads are often prohibitively expensive. Widget-driven, location sensitive micro-advertising tied in to the programming might, in aggregate, add up to a lot of advertising dollars for the networks, while at the same time providing cost-effective, targeted advertising for businesses that might have a hard time affording the occasional ad on local TV.
Or you could do it for the children
OK, monetization is how all this gets built, but I can really see this as a tool for the greater good for children. Shows like Sesame Street are already cool (who doesn't have this video stuck in their head indelibly), but imagine how cool it would be to be able to click on "which of these things is not like the others" or type in the answer to a question posed by Elmo.
And when I think of something like Pee Wee's Playhouse with actual interactivity...well, that's just fun!
Do you want Connected TV?
I'm sure it's obvious by now that I totally want Connected TV, not just a consumer, but as a developer. I can see so many ways where knitting these, currently competing, technologies into a coherent whole benefits everyone–consumers, advertisers, developers, and even big media outlets.
I have to say that I'm torn between buying a Connected TV capable TV now and waiting for 3D TV to come to a store near me, or even waiting for hypothetical TV's in the future that might be more completely interactive.
I'm sure that the things I've outlined here are just the tip of the iceberg for what could be possible in the future. What do you think? Is this a technology that looks like fun to you? Are you already making or using Connected TV widgets?
Tag Cloud
Podcasts & Screencasts
@InsideRIA on Twitter
Follow InsideRIA on Twitter
Facebook Application Development
I don't know if Connected TV is going to save broadcast television, at least not in the state it's currently in. (Connected TV, that is.) Now, I'm most definitely not the target audience for Connected TV (one of the reasons I switched to a laptop a few years ago at home was so I could have it in front of me when I'm watching TV), so keep that in mind ...
Let me approach what you've discussed in two parts. First, the fantasy football example. There is definitely a target audience: after all, if you're playing fantasy football, at some point you'll presumably be watching it, and you probably also want to see updated scores as the games progress. (I certainly do ... my friends and I have switched providers in the past because they weren't able to update their scores on a regular basis.) But I'm not sure that the way to reach that audience is by asking them to buy another TV. Hey, we just moved into the HD world not too long ago, and now that TV isn't good enough? We need an internet-connected TV? (Don't get me started on 3D.) And if we don't buy this specific brand of television, we'll have to pay again to get our updates on this TV?
That probably would have been an easier sell 10 years ago, but now the competition isn't just with the laptop army, but with handheld devices as well. If you've got an iDevice, chances are you've already got access to your fantasy scores in real-time, and you don't need to mess with your TV to do it. And of course the service is limited to people who are watching at home; I can take my laptop to certain bars and follow along on that if I don't have my iPod Touch with me. I'm not convinced that there is a large enough market for that kind of service ... never mind that football (more slowly than most sports; the NFL is really the only league that shows the majority of its games on broadcast TV) is moving away from broadcast TV anyway. DirecTV already provides some versions of connected apps for sports, but they're very primitive, and frankly, other than the sports scoreboard, they're not worth the hassle ... and if you're watching most games, there's some kind of ticker on the screen anyway.
Oh ... by the way, I tend to think of "broadcast TV" as local channels vs. "cable" TV. I don't think that's what you mean, though, not if you're mentioning Dirty Jobs. I think you mean TV watching vs. internet watching, yes? So maybe the part about sports moving away from ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox is not relevant.
From a social perspective, I can see a certain amount of value in tying television to online interaction, but again I'm not sure that there is enough of an audience to drive it in the direction you're picturing through a television. Again, I'm seeing this through my own viewing preferences, so I am likely missing some obvious factors, but I don't see that many people sitting through every commercial in hopes that the magic cow code will appear during one of them. I think it would be more likely that they'd simply fast-forward through the commercials on their DVRs, pausing only if they saw the code. Pause, enter code, continue. If the code only works for a certain amount of time after it's shown live, you may be just as likely to find people looking for JOIN THIS GROUP GET ALL COWZ FROM TV. (And you can guarantee that someone will find a way around whatever the advertisers set up to make you watch the commercials.)
And how many people who are active enough in these games to get something from TV are not actually on Facebook while they're watching TV? Can you make those people interested enough in the game to enter the code (or as you suggest, to click on the cow or whatever - I definitely believe that direct interactivity is much better than indirect approaches)? And even if you can, can you get those people to buy new TVs?
I'm afraid that the opportunity for television on its own to become interactive has come and gone ... I remember back in the early '90s when a company was test-marketing an interactive TV service. For some kind of monthly fee, you got a set-top box that picked up radio signals (oh yes, this was the '90s) to transmit game information to handheld game boxes, which were probably the size of a small laptop keyboard. You played along with sports games, game shows, or even occasional drama (I remember playing Law and Order ... the goal was to figure out whodunit), and then you plugged in your phone cord and sent your score in after the game/show/whatever. Naturally, it failed, partly because technology didn't exist at the time to make it easy to play, and partly because the prizes they awarded for playing probably cost more than they made from the service itself. (You have to have enough, well, losers to pay for the winners' prizes.) But at least there weren't competing online services that could do the same thing, only better.
I think one problem here is that there really wasn't a social market to make this kind of interactivity work when there wasn't an online environment where it could already happen, meaning that there wouldn't have been much of a point to set up cow codes if there wasn't a Facebook with FarmVille. (And wouldn't Discovery be better off simply adding those codes to online MythBusters episodes, driving you to their site and knowing that you can enter them in one window while you watch the show in another?)
The other problem is that there is a substantial entry barrier in the home. It would be one thing if all you needed was something like a Slingbox to connect to any existing TV you had, but if it requires a certain type of TV, will this kind of service last long enough for those TVs to become a significant part of the market? Will that technology be compatible with 3D technology and other innovations in TVs to come? How often will people be expected to upgrade their TVs, and is this kind of economy going to support those expectations? Are the people who would upgrade their TVs also the kind of people who are expecting to use their TVs interactively?
I'm not even convinced that there is a viable market for developing microgames and similar services. (Is the ad revenue really there? Do enough people spend actual money on these games to cover what I assume is the vast majority who don't? Or is this just another aspect of the "Internet bubble" that is going to pop eventually when companies are no longer willing to do online things at a loss?) So I'm not sure that developing similar services in a different environment is viable either. (I have no idea how long DirecTV has had games through their service; I've subscribed for about five years and have never played them. Why would I? I have my laptop and four video game consoles in the living room. But at least they can afford to try something like that because it's in addition to my existing subscription.)
I don't mean to rain on this parade ... I'm sure there is a way to make program-watching more interactive, but I'm just not sure that it's going to happen from the television side.
Wow! Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I agree with you that the current state of the technology is less inspiring than what it could be if the Widget could actually interact with the current programming. I don't know if you took on board my idea about "value added" to the programming by Widgets, like for instance a black light overlay in CSI that would enable you to see bodily fluids that flouresce.
And even something as simple as allowing a direct vote for your favorite American Idol candidate without switching on another device could be a huge driver for this. This type of programming is really widespread.
I think you're also missing the promise that this could have for parents of young children. I've seen too many parents who don't know how to handle their toddlers plonk them down in front of the TV so that they don't interfere with adult conversation. The problem is that they don't stay there, because what they really crave is a two-way conversation. If you have a device that allows the child to get involved in the program, he's going to be more motivated to stay in front of the TV.
I also agree with you that sometimes it seems a big gamble to buy a device today, since tomorrow it might be superseded by another, better one. However, I suspect that there are quite a few households out there who took the credit crisis as a wakeup call and have been in the process of eliminating their debt and moving to a "cash only" model. I think in the next year or so, many of these families will emerge with cash in hand and no credit card payments holding them back, and there will be a surprising resurgence in spending on consumer goods.
I'm totally on the same page with you on everything including the Saints. I happened to go to all the scab games when I went to college in New Orleans. I never could afford a game with real players and a couple of those guys actually made the Saints after the strike. They've come a long way and I can't believe how old Bobby Hebert looks now!
This whole of idea about the interactive TV really hit me when the networks started embracing the online world by letting sites have the videos of their "prized" network shows. I really believe it was the Palin SNL that put it over the top. More people watched it online, and it continued non-stop for weeks, than watched the original airing on Saturday Night Live. I think then, the networks finally could see a revenue model that made sense and could save the networks. Now the whole interactive thing takes it a step further. I'm impressed that you mentioned Fantasy Sports because I think that has driven the technology to where it is now. Before the internet, Fantasy players were dumping the telecasts to listen to radio because they had more in depth coverage of the entire league as opposed to the networks were showing. But now, people have their laptops set up with streaming fantasy stats while they watch their big screens. It's only natural to assume that all that info will be available on TV. I've heard the Miami Dolphins are testing a device for season ticket holders that is some type of hand held computer to enhance the experience of attending the game. It will be some type of media rich, interactive, play by play of the game which includes real time stats from the entire league. I for one, always preferred watching the NFL from home because if I went to a game I felt like I was missing the action from the rest of the league.
So, I think you are on the right track and really touched on a fun topic.
Who Dat? Who Dat?..... Who Dat Say They Gonna Beat Dem Saints?
Alex