SEARCHING FOR THE HOLY GRAIL

Transcrição

SEARCHING FOR THE HOLY GRAIL
Images of Interactive Television
Loes de Vos
European Media Masters of Arts
University of Utrecht
Department of Media and Communication
PO Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht
The Netherlands
Utrecht School of the Arts
Department of Art, Media and Technology
PO Box 1520, 3500 BM Utrecht
The Netherlands
© Rotterdam, The Netherlands August 2000, Loes de Vos
[email protected]
http://www.globalxs.nl/home/l/ldevos/itvresearch/
You may use this document for any personal
or educational purpose. For-profit use requires
my permission. Provided "as is" without
expressed or implied warranty.
Searching for the Holy Grail: Images of Interactive television
Summary
Searching for the Holy Grail is the difficult quest for a successful business model of ITV or
the content (almost used as a mythical concept) of successful ITV (trigger applications
etc) without clearly knowing what one is looking for (interactivity and future television),
just like the medieval knights did not exactly know what the Holy Grail (cup or platter
used by Christ at the Last Supper) looked like. This report compares the concepts of
interactivity in communication science with images of interactivity held by corporate
experts in the field and tries to reveal more realistic perspectives of future ITV and
business models based on this.
The theoretical assumption central to this investigation is that the changing and shifting
ideas of professionals and scholars dealing with the subject, about the use of interactive
television programmes, services and navigation systems is influenced by the meaning
these professionals and scholars attach to the concept of interactive television. The
images of interactive television held by the professionals of ITV are constructed in the
decision-making processes (identification, legitimation, evaluation) of the development of
interactive television. This research considers these processes very important to obtain
insight in the future of interactive television, because they represent the
conceptualization of interactive television.
In this research the following minimal and functional definition of television is used to
explore the concept of interactive television and to be able to distinguish interactive
television from other media: In principle, television is the public transmission, over some
distance, of audiovisual programmes and services made for a relatively large audience.
A short summary of the most common definitions of interactivity in social and
communication science indicated how bad the concept of interactivity has been
operationalized. Most often the question is whether particular media are interactive.
Many definitions of the concept in communication science are a supplement to the
sender-message-receiver model. A feedback or reactions by receivers are added. In this
way definitions of interactivity remain in the confines of the transmission model so
characteristic to most of communication science.
In this report we argue for a contextual model integrating a sociological, socialpsychological and communication scientific definition of interactivity. This model fits to an
alternative approach in communication science not primarily defining communication as
transmission but as a symbolic process of actors continually producing, reproducing and
transforming reality (Carey, 1989). Van Dijk (1991/1997, 1999) has offered the
beginnings of such a conceptualization of interactivity. He defines four levels of
interactivity (two-sided- or multilateral communication, synchronicity, control and
understanding) as dimensions of space, time, behaviour and a mental dimension
respectively. These levels are supposed to be cumulative both within and between levels.
In the investigation reported here this definition has been specified in a number of
indices or indicators to investigate interactive television.
While Van Dijk's definition of interactivity is used for the operational definition of this
concept, the relational model of Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne has been elaborated to
develop a contextual model for interactive television. Starting from the perspective of the
concrete situation of interactive television, a specification of the usage contexts of
interactive television into social and spatial contexts and an integration (instead of a
separation) of face-to-face and face-to-interface communication added to this contextual
model for interactive television. Along with this model a contextual approach to the
development of interactive television programmes and services is proclaimed. When ITV
developers would be aware of the contexts of the use of their ITV programmes and
services they would develop more insight in the potential interactivity in interactive
television settings and this would contribute to the success of their ITV programmes and
services.
© Loes de vos, 2000
1
In the empirical investigation reported here Van Dijk's conceptualization of interactivity
and the contextual model of interactive television developed in this investigation were
converted into questions about the interactivity of ITV. An online questionnaire was
constructed and filled in by 74 international experts of ITV. The questions concerned their
company and its supply of ITV, their definition of interactivity, their image of the market
for ITV, their image of the usage context of ITV, their image of the future of television
and the sources of information for their images of ITV. The group of respondents
comprised 15 American, 3 Asian and 56 European companies.
Under these respondents a clear divide can be made that we also observed in the
answers of the company experts. One of the most striking results of this investigation is
that company experts engaging with ITV from the television-producing sector think quite
different about the future of ITV than experts among Internet producers. Therefore the
respondents were divided into two categories abbreviated as 'television producers of ITV'
(n=31) and 'Internet producers of ITV' (n=41) to enable a more useful discussion of the
results. Two consultant agencies could not be classified and they were discarded in all
analyses dealing with comparisons between television and Internet producers.
From the results of the empirical survey it appeared that the concept of interactivity is
both amply used and held to be very abstract by the expert respondents. Most common
meaning is interactivity as reactivity: making choices from menus. There is a strong need
for a clear concept of interactivity and future television to define a viable business model.
Another important conclusion of our investigation is that technological convergence is not
yet social convergence or a fusion in the daily use of the media concerned. Television and
Internet uses as we know them will develop numerous cross lines and applications to be
sure, but that they will also remain largely or at least partly separate in daily uses.
Based on the answers to these questions the contours of a potential business model of
ITV are sketched by the description of a number of options businesses have to choose
from. This business model contains the following elements:
Their orientation to media development; for instance a hardware or a software
orientation etc. Traditionally most attention is paid to the platform, the connection and
the equipment required for ITV, the question whether ITV will be enhanced TV, enhanced
PC or a TV-PC convergence. Subsequently, orientation has clearly shifted to the
development of software. First to conditional access and navigation systems, but
increasingly also to the development of so-called 'content' for ITV. As the contours of
potentially successful contents of ITV couldn't be particularly well clarified by the
respondents, looking for content might be the most impressive case of searching for a
Holy Grail.
A potential solution is an orientation to particular applications as it is required in any
business model. From our investigation it appears that television producers of ITV keep
orienting themselves towards applications familiar to current television behaviour. These
are extensions to traditional television programming enabling viewers a better choice
among and within the steeply growing number of channels and programmes. Internet
producers of ITV are looking for more advanced applications they developed earlier for
websites trying to provide a mass audience for them. Most of these applications enable
users to search and produce information themselves and to communicate about the
results with other users. A small part of the respondents is searching for applications that
are completely new.
A third component of any business model attaches particular expectations of user
behaviour to applications concerned. In this case the crucial question is whether
television viewers want to be more interactive, in whatever meaning of the term. From
the questionnaire among ITV experts it clearly comes forward that Internet producers
expect higher levels of interactivity than television producers.
A fourth component is the market perspective used. The central perspective of the large
majority of respondents clearly takes a supply-side view construed from the technical
opportunities of the applications offered. Reasoning from this perspective one is very
2
confident about the future success of ITV. It is only a matter of finding the right
applications with trial and error. A minority takes a demand-side view trying to reason
from the perspective of consumers. This group of respondents thinks consumers will
determine the course of ITV right from the start. Here one takes a more sceptical
attitude to the future of ITV.
A following component is the purpose of the provider: a public or a commercial interest.
Public television broadcasters are mostly directed to a supply of background information
in parallel to their radio and television programmes and they favour the production of
news, current affairs programmes and documentaries. Their commercial antipodes
produce a relatively bigger portion of entertainment programmes.
A last component to be mentioned here is the market strategy developed. Most experts
are oriented to a mass market of families, the core of the current television audience.
They believe that gaining this market for ITV is attainable within a short period of time.
Another part of the experts directly addresses the market sections of youth and Internet
fans. For them this is a deliberate strategy because they believe that these sections will
comprise the ITV mass audience of the future and because they suppose current
television viewers have too much of a 'couch potato' character. Or they view this
direction as a first phase because using ITV should be left the time to grow in the
television behaviour of people.
So, perhaps the most important conclusion from this investigation might be that
interactivity has to be learned, both by producers and consumers. Doing this all with the
spirited hope that searching for this Holy Grail is worth the trouble of such a long quest.
3
Preface
The underlying report is based on theoretical and empirical research conducted during
the second semester of my Masters of Arts education in Multi Media Studies (MA MMS) at
the Utrecht School of the Arts and my final year in Multimedia Development at the
University of Utrecht.
I want to thank Huub Duysens, Ad Wisman (Utrecht School of the Arts, department of
Arts, Media and Technology) and Jan van Dijk (University of Utrecht, faculty of Social
Sciences, department of Media and Communication) for their initiative to start a Master
of Arts education in Multi Media Studies. The cooperation with students from the Utrecht
School of the Arts during our group research of WebTV in the first semester of the MA
MMS was a very interesting and challenging experience. Therefore, I want to thank Floris
Ketel, Mischa Coster, Inge Simons, Cindy Langeberg, Vi Mahabali, Gerald Hemmers,
Jacco Houbiers and Caroline Reinolds for sharing their inspiring ideas about the future of
interactive media in general and interactive television in particular.
For providing me with the necessary financial support to complete this research, I want
to thank the Utrecht School of the Arts.
Furthermore I want to thank Monique van Dusseldorp of Van Dusseldorp and Partners for
her assistance in the collection of names and e-mail addresses of potential respondents
for the online questionnaire and for her input in the validation of the questionnaire.
Most of all, however, I want to express my warm appreciation to Jan van Dijk for being
my patient mentor and for his inspiring contribution to my personal quest, this
investigation on the subject of interactive television.
Rotterdam, August 2000
Loes de Vos
4
Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................... 1
Preface .................................................................................................................. 4
Contents ................................................................................................................ 5
PART I
1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 9
1.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.2
Research question and purpose........................................................................................... 11
1.3
Overview ........................................................................................................................ 12
1.4
Some preliminary concepts ................................................................................................ 13
1.4.1
Traditional and new media .............................................................................................. 13
1.4.2
Television .................................................................................................................... 13
1.4.3
Interactive television ..................................................................................................... 13
1.4.4
Technologies of ITV ....................................................................................................... 14
1.4.5
Content ....................................................................................................................... 14
1.4.6
Providers of interactive television ..................................................................................... 15
1.4.7
Use............................................................................................................................. 16
1.4.8
Television viewer / television user .................................................................................... 17
1.4.9
Usage context .............................................................................................................. 17
1.4.10
Market of ITV ............................................................................................................ 17
1.5
Theoretical assumption...................................................................................................... 17
1.6
The importance of conceptualization .................................................................................... 18
1.7
The investment-cycle ........................................................................................................ 19
1.8
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 20
2
Television ................................................................................................... 22
2.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 22
2.2
Definitions of television...................................................................................................... 22
2.3
Developments in television industry ..................................................................................... 22
2.4
A functional definition of television ...................................................................................... 23
2.5
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 26
3
Interactivity in social and communication science .................................... 27
3.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 27
3.2
The concept of interactivity in social and communication science............................................... 27
3.3
A feedback view on interactivity .......................................................................................... 32
3.4
Interactivity related to the information traffic patterns ............................................................ 33
3.5
Towards a contextual model of interactivity........................................................................... 36
3.6
The concept of mediated environments ................................................................................ 36
3.7
The relational model of interactivity ..................................................................................... 36
3.8
Criteria for a concept of interactivity .................................................................................... 38
3.9
Van Dijk’s contextual model of interactivity ........................................................................... 38
3.10
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 40
5
4
Interactive television ................................................................................. 41
4.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 41
4.2
Towards a contextual model for interactive television.............................................................. 41
4.2.1
The analysis of the context of media use. .......................................................................... 41
4.2.2
Integration of face-to-face and face-to-interface communication processes ............................. 43
4.2.3
A contextual model of interactive television ....................................................................... 46
4.3
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 46
PART II
5
Research Methodology ............................................................................... 49
5.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 49
5.2
Data collection ................................................................................................................. 49
5.2.1
Selection of respondents ................................................................................................ 50
5.2.2
Composition of the questionnaire ..................................................................................... 51
5.2.3
Presentation and distribution of the questionnaire ............................................................... 52
5.3
Data analysis ................................................................................................................... 52
5.4
Publication of research results............................................................................................. 52
6
Sample and Questionnaire ......................................................................... 53
6.1
Questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 53
6.2
Respondents.................................................................................................................... 53
6.3
Quality of the questionnaire................................................................................................ 55
6.4
Results ........................................................................................................................... 56
7
Images of ITV............................................................................................. 57
7.1
Definition of interactive television ........................................................................................ 57
7.2
Levels of interactivity ........................................................................................................ 60
7.3
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 61
8
Images of the market................................................................................. 62
8.1
Starting year of ITV companies ........................................................................................... 62
8.2
Applications in ITV ............................................................................................................ 63
8.3
Short term plans for ITV .................................................................................................... 64
8.4
Other plans of providers for the future ................................................................................. 66
8.5
Future market for ITV........................................................................................................ 67
8.6
Future ITV users............................................................................................................... 68
8.7
Target group of users ........................................................................................................ 71
8.8
Couch potato or not .......................................................................................................... 71
8.9
Adoption of ITV ................................................................................................................ 73
8.10
Price ........................................................................................................................... 74
8.11
Investing in ITV ............................................................................................................ 75
8.12
Driving force ................................................................................................................ 76
8.13
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 77
9
Images of the usage context...................................................................... 78
9.1
Social and environmental context ........................................................................................ 78
9.2
Fulfilling the same needs ................................................................................................... 80
9.3
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 82
6
10
Images of future television ........................................................................ 83
10.1
Convergence of television and the Internet ........................................................................ 83
10.2
Divergence and convergence of content and technology ....................................................... 84
10.3
The platform of introduction ............................................................................................ 84
10.4
Enhancement of television programmes ............................................................................ 85
10.5
Total change of TV? ....................................................................................................... 86
10.6
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 87
11
Sources of corporate images of ITV ........................................................... 88
11.1
Sources of information ................................................................................................... 88
11.2
Research on ITV............................................................................................................ 89
11.3
Testing new ITV applications ........................................................................................... 91
11.4
Getting to know the consumer......................................................................................... 92
11.5
Evaluation of ITV applications.......................................................................................... 93
11.6
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 94
12
Looking for a Business model..................................................................... 95
PART III
13
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 98
Recommendations............................................................................................. 104
References ........................................................................................................ 105
Appendixes........................................................................................................ 109
A: Questionnaire (print version) .................................................................................... 110
B: Questionnaire (online version) .................................................................................. 121
C: Website of the survey................................................................................................ 122
D: Company names and Internet addresses of the respondents ...................................... 124
E: Data-analysis results ................................................................................................. 126
7
PART I
8
1 Introduction
1.1
Introduction
For years, television seemed to have an escape from the emerging era of information and
communication technology. Traditional television, a ubiquitous phenomenon, is known in
households all over the world. While the Internet and the personal computer steadily
marched on, and information and communication technology obtained an increasing
amount of influence on society, the television set seemed to keep its indisputable
presence in the living room. This self-evident situation however is changing now:
Internet on television, the availability of audio and video on the internet, satellite and
terrestrial broadcast services starting with datacasts, broadband providers with new
entertainment services combining video and text. The development of a broad range of
set top-boxes and other technological systems enables the digitalization of the television
business. Traditional television programming is being reconsidered and the enhancement
of television with a return channel opens up the possibility of interaction with the
viewers.
Companies hardly see the wood for the trees, not to mention the consumer. The
television producers and broadcasters, traditionally in charge of the television domain,
have to face the entrance of new players in their market. Web developers, software
developers, access providers, and consultants expand their business to integrate this new
challenging area of information and communication technology. These companies
interested in interactive television (also written as ITV) each have their own ideas about
the realization of interactive television and the programmes and services, which will be
most successful. Their idea of interactivity is important for the future changes in
television. New technologies could, for example, result in 500 channels of video-ondemand, home shopping and the latest sports scores. Some describe this as an upgrade
of zapping and enhanced teletext. On the other hand these interactive technologies could
transform television into a two-way, personalized, partner in fulfilling modern people's
ever-increasing need for entertainment, communication, transaction and information. At
first sight this seems to have few things in common with traditional television as we
knew before. One thing is certain, however, the consequences of these developments are
still unsure and a lot of speculation is involved in defining the future of television.
But, in the end, the future of interactive television lies not solely in the hands of these
companies. All the predictions and promises of highly interactive programmes and
services still have to find its way into the homes. The television viewer remains a crucial
link to success. Many research has shown that the consumers won't let themselves be
fobbed something off if there is no real added value to it. For companies involved in
interactive television it is crucial to realize this and to pay close attention to the
characteristics and wishes of the potential consumer for interactive television. What kind
of programming are they waiting for and which programmes and services will be
successful in short term? The pioneers of interactive television find themselves closely
watched by other players in the market, because every piece of information could
provide interesting clues for future strategies.
Each of the companies involved is trying to get in control of this business by developing
strategies that will ensure them of a share in the expected profits. They differ in the
amount of money they have available to spend on experiments and research, the amount
of risks they are willing to take and the opinion they have about the speed with which
interactive television will become reality in the homes of the masses. They all have in
common, however, the numerous questions they are dealing with and the uncertainty of
what the future will be like. They are looking for applications, on this occasion
desperately seeking for a feasible business model of ITV. Their faith in the opportunities
of this medium of the future is strong. Compared to this, their visions of both the concept
and the applications of interactivity are weak and unclear.
9
In the mean time a number of communication scientists have started a laborious and still
not very successful operational definition of the concept of interactivity. This research
aims to compare concepts of interactivity in communication science with images of
interactivity held by corporate experts in the field and tries to reveal more realistic
perspectives of future interactive television and business models based on these
concepts. So, the quest for the meaning of interactivity by both communication scientists
and ITV professionals resembles the hunt of medieval knights for the Holy Grail, a cup or
platter supposed to be used by Christ at the Last Supper, an object they also did not
know what it looked like exactly.
For the purpose of this investigation a lot of publications, news articles and research
reports were read and several discussions and conferences were attended. The amount
of different definitions and predictions of interactive television resulting from this was
really astonishing. People sometimes even trusted me with their confusion and their need
for definitions. Some were more desperate than others, but they were all quite
enthusiastic about every single piece of information that could be of assistance to their
search for the Holy Grail, a glance into the future of interactive television. Of course, and
we know this from experiences with other innovations, in practice there is never one
clear picture to start with. Interactive television is definitely no exception to that rule, but
this does not mean that we cannot try to take away some of the foggy clouds and try to
conceptualize the meaning and implications of interactive television. Meetings between
professionals, panel debates and business meetings to decide on strategy are very useful
means to stimulate the dialog about the development of interactive television. They can
be made even more effective, however, if the confusion of tongues often experienced
during these meetings can be decreased by some amount of shared concepts. This
research is only one step in that direction and it is just a try to gather several thoughts
from the field of interactive television, to analyze them and to present an overview of the
ideas that live in the heads of those working on the introduction of interactive television.
10
1.2
Research question and purpose
This report is based on theoretical and empirical research conducted during the second
semester of my Masters of Arts education in Multi Media Studies at the Utrecht School of
the Arts and my final year in Multimedia Development at the University of Utrecht. The
central questions of this research are:
1. Theoretical part:
•
Which concept of television is adequate to understand the opportunities and risks of
interactive television as an innovation of television?
•
Which concept of interactivity is adequate to understand the opportunities and risks
of interactive television as an innovation of television?
2. Empirical part:
•
How do providers of interactive television programmes, services and navigational
systems define the concept of interactive television?
•
systems think about the use and the usage context of interactive television?
•
systems think about the future market for interactive television?
•
On what information are these concepts based? (usage research, personal
experience, expert's reports, literature)?
The purpose of this research is twofold:
First, this research aims to develop a deeper understanding of the way providers of
interactive television programmes and services think of the concept of interactive
television, the potential use of interactive television and the information on which they
base these concepts.
Second, this research aims to raise attention for the specific features of interactivity via
television and to contribute to the development of more appropriate strategies for
interactive television by providing a more realistic and objective perspective on the
opportunities and threats of interactive television.
The target group of readers for this report:
Keeping in mind this purpose of the investigation, the report was written in such a way
that, when published, it could be read and be useful for the people from the field of
interactive television that contributed to my research. This way this report could
contribute to a certain amount of reflection and the conceptualization of their strategy.
11
1.3
Overview
To create a certain degree of common understanding about the concepts central to this
research, some general definitions will be discussed in the remaining sections of this
chapter together with a short theoretical exploration on the phenomenon of
conceptualization. Chapter 2 concerns the concept of television and presents a functional
definition of television. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the concepts of interactivity in
communication science and presents a contextual model of interactivity that will be used
for the operational definition of this concept in the empirical investigation. Chapter 4
combines the results of the conceptualization of television with the results of the
conceptualization of interactivity into a contextual model of interactive television.
Departing from a theoretical investigation of the concept of interactive television, the
empirical survey concerns the images of interactive television held by corporate experts
in the field of ITV. The findings of this empirical research are discussed in Part II of this
report. In chapter 5 the methodology of research is explained and the sample and the
questionnaire are discussed in chapter 6. The corporate images of ITV resulting from the
empirical research are presented in the chapters 7 to 11. These chapters cover
successively the definitions of ITV (chapter 7), the images of the market of ITV (chapter
8), the images of the usage context of ITV (chapter 9), the images of future television
(chapter 10) and the sources of these corporate images of ITV (chapter 11). Chapter 12
tries to reveal the first contours of a feasible business model based on these concepts.
In Part III the concepts of interactivity in communication science are compared with the
images of interactivity held by corporate experts in the field. Chapter thirteen contains
the conclusion and chapter 14 some recommendations for further research. Several
appendixes and a list with information of the respondents that have contributed to this
research are added at the back of this report.
12
1.4
Some preliminary concepts
To create a certain degree of common understanding about the concepts central to this
research we need some general definitions. The conceptualization to achieve these
definitions, though, happens to be the very purpose of this research. In this section the
conceptualization is postponed, so in the section below only the rough outlines of these
concepts are presented. They can and must not be ascribed too much value as their sole
purpose is to enable the communication process and to contribute to a more complete
and thorough conceptualization of interactive television.
1.4.1 Traditional and new media
The concept of interactivity is supposed to be one of the most important characteristics
of new media (Van Dijk, 1997). New media, however, cannot be treated all alike. Next to
all the similarities, there are many differences between the new media. The technology,
the applications available, the users, and the usage context; these are all media specific
and therefore new media each have their own character. To do justice to this specific
character, this research on interactive television tries to analyze the concept of
interactivity in the scope of the medium television and all its features. Hopefully this will
enable a realistic perspective on the opportunities and threats of interactive television.
1.4.2 Television
In this research the following definition of television will be used to explore the concept
of interactive television:
In principle, television is the public transmission, over some distance, of
audiovisual programmes and services made for a relatively large audience.
Such a concept of television is necessary to be able to distinguish interactive television
from other media. A more detailed explanation of this definition will be given in chapter
two.
1.4.3 Interactive television
A workable definition of interactive television is the following one designed by James
Stewart, to be found at the section ITV News of the Carat Multimedia site
(http://www.itvnews.com/whatis/index.htm)
Interactive television is … “the meeting of television with new interactive
technology. ITV is domestic television with interactive facilities usually facilitated
through a 'back channel' and/or an advanced terminal. Equally important,
interactive television is content that users and viewers can interact with via the
technical system. Interactive television is also a way of empowering viewers to
use television in new ways.”
This definition contains aspects of technology but also of content and users, and
television is considered to be the starting point for interactive television. Therefore it is a
reasonable definition to start with. In the forthcoming chapters it will be explored into
further detail when discussing the results of this research.
Some people think of research on the subject of interactive television as useless, because
in the end all media will be one and TV and PC will be fully converged. Whether a
convergence will occur or not, will not be anticipated upon, but the power of innovation
must not be overestimated. It is necessary to depart from the current situation of
television being quite different from the personal computer. Therefore the term
‘television’ is still very important for this report. This presumption, however, will not
prevent an objective presentation of and reflection on the different perspectives on
interactive television central to this report.
13
1.4.4 Technologies of ITV
Technology is not the subject of this research, but a brief understanding of the key
technologies that enable the development of ITV could be valuable for the understanding
of the conceptualization of interactive television. The most important technologies will be
briefly discussed below.
Video Servers:
These are databases of computerized audio, video and data, available to be transmitted
via digital networks.
High Capacity Telecommunication Links:
This is an infrastructure with increasing capacity and reach. This could be cable or ADSL,
but also digital terrestrial or satellite etcetera.
Broadband Switches en Routers:
They make it possible to connect everything in a network like the Internet; the video
servers with different providers, the providers with the consumers and the consumers
with each other.
Navigational Agents, Personalized Menus:
All kinds of software with predefined structures, menus and intelligent agents that assist
the user to browse through and personalize the content offered.
Intelligent Home Display Terminals:
These intelligent terminals connect the screen functions of a television set to the ability
of a computer to save, adapt and send information.
1.4.5 Content
Nowadays, the concept content is being used in season and out of season. In almost
every article about multimedia the concept content appears on stage. The meaning of
this concept seems to be very obvious.
“By content we mean any form of source material: movies, games, news, images,
sounds, etc. which will appear on the user’s television or PC Screen.” ‘Content’ according
to IBM ‘An Introduction to Interactive Television’ (1995).
This description of content implies that the books on people’s bookshelves and the
newspapers we read are not content, or not anymore. Since the dawn of the age of
multimedia, the word content has been used more and more. It almost seems there was
no content until we developed new media. The phrase ‘Content is King’ means content
will have the ultimate power to draw consumers to interactive television, it is often used
to legitimate extra attention to content development, but what exactly do we mean by
this word?
A medium ‘contains’ content so to speak; from this perspective content is everything
except the hardware and the infrastructure. These are being ‘filled’ by content. What
about the software that enables the hardware to function? If we define content by
starting from the potential consumer of interactive television, I would suggest everything
that he/she can access, through no matter what technical system of interactive
television, is content. From this perspective the definition does not include the system
software for the hardware.
Sometimes the term content is used for the ‘raw material’ only. The different types of
presentation of this content determine the final appearance of the content. Then, content
is better described as the source of the actual programmes consumers use. To extend
this distinction in further detail, we could argue about the amount of ‘editing’ that has
been done to the content, before presentation. From that perspective there is a
difference between, for example, personalized thematic news services with a lot of
editing before presentation, and the large databases of mainly unedited statistical
research data available for scientists on the WWW.
14
Maybe it could be interesting to define a continuum of the amount of editing of content.
This raises an interesting topic for discussion, because with the empowering of the viewer
to control the content he or she ‘views’, the editing lies not solely in the hands of the
developers anymore. The traditional distinction between the television producers, who
develop the television content, and at the receivers end the viewer, having no possibility
to influence the offered programmes whatsoever, is blurring. The content the television
viewer ‘receives’ can be edited and resend/uploaded again for further use by other users.
For example add personal comments, choose your favorite music top ten to be played,
play a game and find your personal scores and actions listed in the daily game review.
The concept content looses more and more of its staticity and gains in fluidity and
flexibility.
This topic is very important for the conceptualization of interactive television. For the
proceedings of this research it is efficacious to make the following categorization:
•
Programmes:
Television programming enhanced with interactivity.
For example game shows with viewers participation.
•
Services:
Interactive services via television.
For example home banking and email.
•
Navigation systems:
All kinds of predefined structures, menus and intelligent agents to browse through
and personalize the content offered.
For example Electronic Programme Guides.
It is important not to stick too much to the descriptions above. It is still uncertain what
kinds of new formats and merges between traditional television programming and new
types of services will emerge in the future.
1.4.6 Providers of interactive television
Several types of companies are involved in the interactive television business. Hardware
developers, software developers, infrastructure providers, television producers and
broadcasters expanding their former linear offer with interactive elements, internet
developers also interested in developing for television, consultants, research companies,
advertising agencies driven by the promises of personalized advertising… etcetera. A
convergence of broadcast, telecommunication and information technology has resulted in
a melting pot of all kinds of companies that have, in some way or another, made
business out of these converging media. Dividing lines are crossed and they don’t
hesitate to explore formerly unknown areas. Television producers and broadcasters no
longer exclusively occupy the television domain. If and to what extent this implies a
convergence of cultures and products is difficult to predict, but it is sure that it is not that
easy anymore to describe companies by activity and attach a label to them. When you
ask two companies with roughly the same activities to describe themselves, it is possible
that you end up with two different descriptions.
This research focuses on those providers of interactive television that are involved in the
content business for interactive television not the infrastructure or the hardware. To
distinguish between companies providing content and those who don’t is not that easy.
What exactly do we mean by providing?
At first sight, it seems there is a difference between the development of programmes and
services (like television producers and software developers do) and the organization of
these programmes and services into channels/bouquets (like operators and broadcasters
do), by which the content becomes accessible to users. This would, however, be an
untenable distinction because there are several examples of operators (like TPS and
Canal+ in France) employing their own developing staff working on for example
electronic programme guides. There are also infrastructure providers, like cable
15
companies, involved in the production of thematic news channels. And what about
consultancy agencies? They often play a consultative role in defining strategies, but they
also give conceptual advice and sometimes even more, they partake in the developing
process of programmes, services and/or navigation systems.
To be able to make some distinction between providers of interactive television involved
in the ‘content business’ for interactive television and those involved in the infrastructure
or the hardware, being involved in the content business is defined as being involved in
the production process of programmes, services and navigation systems. This production
process ranges from concept developing to the end-presentation for the users and all the
phases in between.
Companies belonging to this category could roughly be divided into the following
company types:
•
Interactive media developers for multi channels: Internet, CD-Rom, ITV;
•
Television producers, producing for interactive television;
•
Internet developers, expanding their activities with interactive television
•
Companies developing programmes and services for interactive television only;
•
Access providers also involved in developing programmes, services or navigational
systems;
•
Consultancy agencies.
But once more it is very complicated to sort out companies effectively, because it is often
difficult to tell from, for example corporate websites, what the core business is. These
companies find themselves in the middle of a very fast moving business and this often
affects their activities and the name they apply to themselves. However, it is interesting
enough to be very strict in this distinction, because labeling enables to find particular
differences of view and perspective regarding interactive television (see empirical part).
1.4.7 Use
Williams, Rice and Rogers (1988) describe the concept ‘use’ as the duration of the usage
(total time per period spent on a medium), the exposure (total time since the start of the
use) and the frequency of usage of the medium (number of times an individual uses the
medium). ‘Use’ is “the degree to which a user has experience with the medium” (Williams
et al., 1988).
Whether people ‘view’ television or ‘use’ television seems just a choice of words. Some
argue that people do not have television sets to ‘do’ something with, but just to sit down
and ‘watch’.
“Communication by television will still be referred to by consumers in terms of the
television. Consumers will continue to watch TV and sit in the family room as a social
group and have certain viewing hours…. It is doubtful that anyone will hear the following
comment in the family room; “I’m going to participate with interactive television.” Or
“I’m going to actively control the ITV.” Most people will probably still say; “I’m going to
watch television.”, then begin clicking menus, reading screens and becoming involved
with the content available for interaction.” (www.mindspring.com/~cjs/professional/
papers/itv/ITV3.html)
Others, however, believe the use of television will change over time. They are certain
that people will extend their viewing behavior to search for information, to order
swimsuits, to send emails, to play games, to participate in talk shows etcetera. From this
perspective it would be difficult to keep calling this ‘watching’ television and it would be
better to talk about ‘using’ the television set.
The word ‘use’ is appropriate for interactive television, presuming there will be at least
some changes in our television behavior that extend our traditional television watching
16
with activities which require a more active behavior. Probably, people will differ in the
degree to which they are actively involved in using the television and it still remains to be
seen which factors will be key for the television viewer to adopt new interactive forms of
television. That is interesting stuff for further research, however.
1.4.8 Television viewer / television user
Do we stick to the term ‘television viewer’, where ‘viewing’ has a connotation of
passivity, or will ‘television user’ be a more suitable term to indicate that the television
viewer can do more than just viewing? A return channel enables the television viewer to
react to the content he or she is offered. This implies the possibility of a change of roles
between the sender (broadcaster) and the receiver (television viewer). How much the
television viewer can be considered as a sender is depending on the amount of influence
he wants to, and is able to, have on the programming. If home shopping takes off the
television viewer definitely has to be considered as a consumer too. I do not want to
decide on this term in this short paragraph, but it is an interesting discussion that will be
explored in further detail in the chapters discussing the results later on in this report.
1.4.9 Usage context
Focusing on the concrete situation of interactive television use, the term context acquires
at least two meanings here: the social context of companionship and the spatial context
of use of ITV. The social context of companionship considers the social character of using
or viewing ITV, and distinguishes between viewing or using alone or in company.
Concerning the home as the spatial user context, it is possible to distinguish between
viewing or using ITV in the living room, in individual rooms like the study, or in all rooms
of the home. A more detailed explanation of the usage context will be presented in
chapter 4.
1.4.10 Market of ITV
DeFleur and Dennis (1996) used the following definition of the concept 'market': "The
people who live in a given geographical area or city and who can be reached by a
medium, such as television." Television has a global reach and is not restricted to a given
geographical area. It is a mass market and cross-society phenomenon, almost everyone
watches TV (Stewart, 1998). The market, providers of ITV aim at, is not a niche market
but resembles the total market of television. With their interactive television programmes
and services they would like to replace traditional television to enter the mass market of
television.
1.5
Theoretical assumption
The assumption central to this research is:
The changing and shifting ideas of professionals and scholars dealing with the subject,
about the use of interactive television programmes, services and navigation systems is
influenced by the meaning these professionals and scholars attach to the concept of
interactive television.
For example, national governments involved in the construction of appropriate
regulation, providers of technological systems, providers of content and of course the
potential consumers of interactive television. They all have a certain amount of influence
on the development and adoption of interactive television. This research focuses on the
meaning providers of interactive television programmes, services and navigation systems
attach to the concept of interactive television. We focus on how their definition of
interactive television is created and how they think about the future of interactive
television, because this influences the content they produce. For potential users content
is one of the most important reasons to decide to use interactive television or not. The
17
composition and quality of the programmes and services for interactive television
therefore, is of great importance for the adoption of interactive television by potential
users.
The theoretical assumption, stated above, is quite abstract, but it might be useful to
illustrate the importance of conceptualization. In the next section the importance of
conceptualization will be explored to further detail.
1.6
The importance of conceptualization
“ Socrates taught his pupil Plato the importance of definitions for the development
of knowledge. Concepts need to be conscientiously defined and the meaning
attached to the concept has to be persisted upon consistently. By the time the big
problem for these philosophers was already how to get people, all with their own
subjective interpretation of reality, to come to an agreement about such a
meaning. To enable communication there has to be a certain amount of collective
agreement about the meaning of a concept. Next to the individual, subjective
interpretation, a social process is needed to acquire this harmony of meanings.
This process is called the social construction of reality. By communicating with
each other, concepts develop a meaning for people and this results in agreement
about the definitions of these concepts. This is also true for definitions of things
we have never sensorially experienced before.”
(Quote translated from De Boer & Brennecke, 1998)
Applied to interactive television, there have been several field trials and several providers
have already launched interactive services. Analog or digital, a home shopping channel or
regional weather information, interactive television is not a totally unfamiliar concept
anymore. For the average television viewer it probably still is, but providers of interactive
programmes and services are already busy creating their own meaning for the concept of
interactive television. Some have found each other in having the same definition of
interactive television. They sometimes start a company together. Others are having
difficulties making up their mind on the value they have to attach to this supposed very
promising new future for television. They try to create their own picture of this future. Be
it by imaginating the sky is the limit or by conducting intensive research to receive
concrete statistical evidence that could provide some clarity of thoughts.
It can be a risky business if these subjective definitions become a social construction of
the concept of interactive television with little or no relation to reality. Of course some
fantasy might as well serve innovation. If, however, contact with reality is lost and future
actions are based on carefully created very attractive concepts of interactive television
only, the opposite could be true and success might be long in coming. Many interactive
television experiments have not reached the expected mass adoption, although the
technical systems were very innovating and promising. The television viewers simply did
not use the interactive services offered. There are many different reasons for these
failures. The professional assumption, however, was that these systems for interactive
television with its technologically unlimited possibilities were all that the viewers had ever
been dreaming of. This is an example of a professional bias causing a misperception of
the real possibilities for interactive television. In the end these systems died an early
death and not very seldom the same television viewers were blamed to be impossible
passive couch potatoes, so stupid not to notice the advantages of such wonderful
systems. This should ring a bell and it might be useful to analyze the construction of the
concept interactive television.
The information to build the picture, the concept of interactive television, can be acquired
in several different ways. The classification of ways to acquire knowledge from Nathans
(1997) could be of use to guide an investigation of the different ways in which we acquire
information or make decisions. She distinguishes four sources of information:
18
•
Rational thinking:
One acquires knowledge by using rational reasoning
•
(Sensorial) perception:
One acquires knowledge by using the senses. The collection of factual data also forms
part of this way of collecting knowledge.
•
Intuition:
One perceives or knows something without this being the result of reasoning or
sensorial perception.
•
Personal values:
Here the information is shaped by ethical considerations, values one hold in esteem
personally or dictated by the organization one forms part of.
Some of these sources of information are more familiar to us than others. Sensorial
perception and rational thinking are more developed in western culture than intuition and
personal values. Although we know our perception can be biased in different ways, we
still presume something is true if we can find a reasonable explanation for it. We also
know that different people all using rational thinking can end up with different point of
views on a subject. Personal values and intuition are even more difficult to work with.
Different people have different ethical considerations, not to speak of the values a
company can dictate its employees. Intuition is often not accepted as a valuable source
of information. Some people are not sure of the value of their intuition and conduct
extensive research to find proof for what their intuitive thoughts had already suggested.
Others trust their intuition implicitly, and especially people employed in innovative
markets think this sometimes is the most valuable source of information to decide on.
1.7
The investment-cycle
The four ways to acquire knowledge discussed in the last section are input for the
conceptualization of interactive television and the decisions taken by providers of
interactive television. The investment cycle of Van Irsel & Swinkels (1992) is a model for
decision-making also applicable to decisions for investments in the multimedia. Here this
model is used to analyze several bottlenecks that could occur with investments in
interactive television. We will focus on the activities identification, legitimation and
evaluation.
identify
evaluate
legitimate
exploit
realize
Figure 1.1: The Investment-cycle of Van Irsel & Swinkels (1992)
Identification
For investments in interactive television the question central to the identification phase
is: ”What kind of programmes, services and navigational systems could be profitable for
19
our organization?” To find an answer to this question it is important to define what is
understood by interactive television. The identification phase therefore is an important
moment in the conceptualization of interactive television.
Legitimation
In this phase it is important to get a clear picture of which investments in interactive
television will be most profitable to the organization. This concerns the added value for
the company. Providers of interactive television differ in the way they legitimate their
investments in interactive television. The way they try to get acquainted with the market
and the potential user, but also their prediction of the future of interactive television are
important aspects to describe how they legitimate their investments.
Evaluation
To be able to decide whether investments were correct or not, it is necessary to evaluate.
Sufficient evaluation can also contribute to a process of understanding and a stimulation
of the learning curve involved with innovations (Röling et al., 1994). It is interesting to
investigate how much attention providers of interactive television pay to evaluation and
how they evaluate their investments.
1.8
Conclusion
Concluding from the collection theoretical notes and preliminary defined concepts
discussed in this chapter the figure below visualizes the relation between the collection of
knowledge about interactive television, the conceptualization of interactive television and
the programmes and services resulting from this process. This relation is presumed to be
of a cyclical nature in which new experiences and information continually influence the
ideas about and concepts of interactive television which in turn influence the
programmes and services being developed for interactive television.
Throughput:
Conceptualization
and decision-making
Output:
Programmes and
services
(based on concept of
interactive television)
Input: information
collected by means of
rational thinking, sensorial
perception, intuition and
personal values.
Figure 1.2: Conceptualization of interactive television
20
This model is a very simplified presentation of the main areas of interest of this research
that focuses on the images of interactive television held by corporate experts in the field.
These images are constructed in the decision-making processes (identification,
legitimation, evaluation) of the development of interactive television. This research
considers these processes very important to obtain insight in the future of interactive
television, because they represent the conceptualization of interactive television.
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 contain a theoretical investigation of the scientific concepts of
interactivity. Part two addresses the empirical research on the professional concepts of
interactive television. With the knowledge collected in this research we will be able to
provide the model presented above with a body of empirical information. This research,
however, only tries to give a general overview and analysis of multiple different concepts
of interactive television. These concepts vary from individual to individual, from company
to company. Whether they are very clearly defined or a little foggy, an investigation of
the similarities and the differences between them could be very stimulating for the
conceptualization of interactive television in general.
21
2 Television
2.1
Introduction
In chapter 1, I defined interactive television as bringing possibilities of interactive
multimedia technology to Television. Therefore, I think it is crucial to take a closer look
at the concept of television before we start to look at the concept of interactive
television. What exactly is television? The definition of it is very important because even
that is unclear. The formal definitions of television provide limited insight in the basic
elements that constitute television. After a short description of the developments and
changes in the television industry, a more flexible and functional concept of television is
proposed to stimulate a thorough discussion on the future of television.
2.2
Definitions of television
“Television is an electronic system for transmitting still or moving images and sound to
receivers that project a view of the images on a picture tube or screen and re-create the
sound.” (Encyclopedia Britannica 1999-2000, http://search.britannica.com)
“Television is a communication medium that transmits and receives sounds and images,
including moving images, by means of electromagnetic waves or electrical signals
transmitted by cable.” (Encyclopedia of communications Technology, Gardner &
Shortelle, 1997)
The Webster’s New World Dictionary of Media and Communications (revised edition
1996) uses the same definition as the Encyclopedia of Communications Technology, but
adds the following: “The signals/waves are transmitted by a TV station and received by
TV sets.”
These definitions of television merely describe television as a technical system.
Television, however, must be considered as a major business, and placed in a wider
technical and social context. “Television is also a mass market and cross-society
phenomenon, almost everyone watches TV. It is the sheer reach of the medium that
makes the integration of new technology into television a major issue.” (Stewart, 1998).
Television is a primary source of news and entertainment and plays an important role in
most people’s domestic life. It also contributes to our cultural, social, political and
consumer awareness (Lull, 1990). In other words, ‘television is everyday life’
(Silverstone, 1994). Television is also an important industry and a controversial business
that challenges political and cultural norms as it becomes more commercial and
international (Stewart, 1998).
2.3
Developments in television industry
For decades, the television industry around the world was a very steady business.In
America and Japan, a couple of commercial broadcasters dominated the market and in
Europe, television was privileged to the public broadcasters. Since the Eighties, the
television industry has become more dynamic. With the advent of cable and satellite,
new technologies have come into existence that make it possible to pay attention to the
interests of the consumers of programmes and services. Throughout the years, television
audiences became more selective and demanding. They wanted clearer pictures, and
then color, and then larger screens, and then greater control over what they viewed
(DeFleur & Dennis, 1996:213). A new market emerged with a diversified offer of
programmes and services for television. After years of stagnation, technical innovations
accelerate the developments in the television industry.
It is difficult to predict the future of television. Many experts on this subject launch their
scenarios of the future of television. Some of them expect the computer to be the
22
platform for interactive services, but others choose for television as the universal
platform of all communication in the homes. Whether they predict a positive or a
negative future for television, they all try to present their own ideas about the
developments in the television industry as if their scenario is the most probable.
Noam (1996) describes three phases in the development of television. In the first phase,
television depended on programme rights and a couple of broadcasters formed an
oligopoly on the still national market. Noam speaks of 'privileged television'. The
broadcasters each delivered a complete offer of television programmes. In the transition
from the first to the second phase, the broadcasters increasingly directed their attention
to a mass public to guarantee their economic viability. Just a few broadcasters continued
to produce for smaller audiences, minorities like for example the intellectual elite and the
poorer groups of society. In the second phase the amount of channels increased and
'multichannel television', like we know today, was born. The characteristics of this phase
are a commercialization of television, more programming and increasing specialization of
the broadcasters.
A development of 'multichannel' television into 'mega-channel' television could be the
future of television, but the opposite could also be true; a ME-channel. Noam (1996)
thinks new developments in the television industry will herald the third phase of
television, called Cyber-TV. According to Noam this interactive, decentralized form of
television will allow every consumer to compose his or her own television programming
according to his or her personal interests, anytime and from an almost endless database
of content. Synonyms for cyber-television are ME-TV, personal TV or ITV.
2.4
A functional definition of television
Television is considered a self-evident domestic phenomenon. However, with the advent
of new technologies as described above, this concept of television is subject of
discussion. Technological definitions describing the transmission system and the
television device will no longer be able to face the fast moving technological
developments. Therefore, it is important to beware of definitions where technology has
become key in defining the concept of (interactive) television. First of all, because
definitions of (interactive) television starting from the existing technology, would pose
too much restrictions on the elasticity of the definition in future. Second, and most
important, there is much more to (interactive) television then just the technology. The
programs, the services and of course the users are as important to the future of
(interactive) television as the technology.
To find a definition that meets with these criteria I would like to propose a technologyindependent concept of television that highlights the structural characteristics of
television and transcends historical forms of television. To find those characteristics that
are necessary for a basic concept of television, the different developments and changes
in the field of television have been summarized by six pairs of prefixes to the term
television explaining the diversity of the phenomenon of television. These pairs will result
into the most important characteristics that make up a rudimentary concept of television
that is functional in our analysis and conceptualization of the future of (interactive)
television. Such a concept will enable a more thorough discussion about the distinction of
television from other media.
Below the following pairs of prefixes to television will describe the developments and
changes in the field of television.
one-way/two-way
Television used to be a one-way electronic system for transmitting audiovisual
programmes to receivers. These receivers (the television viewers) had no other
possibility than to choose which channel or programme to watch. Interactive technology
enables the television viewer to give feedback by means of a ‘back channel’. From a
23
broadband cable connection to an analogue telephone line, the technical capacity of the
back channel determines the amount, but also the quality of the feedback users are able
to give. The fact that television can be enhanced from one-way to two-way has a lot of
consequences for the nature of television and the way people watch television. Below
some of these are discussed into further detail.
allocutive/interactive
Traditionally, television could be characterized as pouring out programmes over a large
audience, also described as allocutive communication. Allocution can be defined as: "The
simultaneous distribution of information to an audience of local units by a center which
serves as the source of and decision agency for the information in respect of its subject
matter, time and speed." (Van Dijk, 1999). The definition of a television viewer (Webster
Dictionary) is very passive and receiving. Television, however, has changed, now people
can 'do' a number of things with their television sets, besides watching linear
programming. "We now confront a situation where the television set, while remaining
the 'family hearth', can be used to videotape broadcast television and watch this at a
later time; to watch rented and bought videotape material; to call up 'electronic pages' of
information; and as a space of which either to play interactive video games or to display
computerized data and to make calculations." (Morley, 1993) Increasingly the source of
the information, the sender, only decides upon the content that is made available to the
consumer who is able to choose from this content whatever and whenever he or she
wants. The power to control is shifting from the center towards the receiver. This
resembles the consultation type of communication that can be defined as: "The selection
of information by (primarily) local units, which decide upon the subject matter, time and
speed, at a center which remains its source." (Van Dijk, 1999). Television opens up for
interactive use. There are many delivery systems, technical standards, possible uses and
content. These range from the WWW to home shopping, Digital Video Broadcasting to
Internet, movies on demand to interactive game shows.
public/commercial
At the moment, there are public as well as commercial broadcasters providing television.
The public providers have the purpose to provide free television, whereas the commercial
providers follow a commercial interest and seek for a profitable business model. To
create enough revenue streams the commercial providers charge subscription fees for
the programmes and services viewed/used or attract advertisers to share in the costs.
This money permits the television providers to produce expensive programmes that are
well received by audiences. The advertisers are willing to pay high fees to present
themselves in front of these huge audiences and this enables the television providers to
produce programmes that are even more expensive with even greater appeal to the
public. But the increasingly high costs to produce television also forces television
providers to favor highly competitive content like entertainment to less rewarding
programme genres like programmes with background information and documentaries
(DeFleur and Dennis, 1996). For providers of public television this situation can bring
them into conflict with their mission to provide more educational and cultural television.
This way the pressure of the market could result in television programming being much
of the same.
public/private
Until now, television was public and broadcasted to a large audience. Television images
are primarily meant for public instead of private exposure. This way television can be
distinguished from for example video-telephony that consists of private images. If you
have to meet with certain criteria to receive television, for example, you have to be
student at a certain university or employee at a certain company, television is not public
anymore, but private. The question is whether we call this television or not.
24
Increasingly, intermediate forms of television emerge, balancing between public and
private television. For example, the special bouquets of television programming for which
you have to pay a subscription fee to receive them. When these bouquets are available
for everybody, it is market neutral and it can be called television, but when you have to
meet certain criteria, it becomes private and it remains to be seen whether this can be
called television.
professional/amateurish
Next to the traditional television programmes produced by large groups of professionals
(directors, camera people, actors, editors etcetera) an increasing amount of amateurish
video content finds its way to broadcast television. Programmes like America’s funniest
Home videos, and programmes from the genre of reality-TV showing amateurish
registrations of disasters, accidents and criminal offences lean greatly on these
amateurish videos. In this category of television, however, there is still a considerable
amount of professional influence needed to edit and produce the final programme. On
the Internet, however, an increasing amount of web cams can be found, showing us the
live registration of the lives and whereabouts of people all over the world. Most of the
time, the only resemblance with professional techniques of producing television is the
choice of the position of the web cam. In the future computer users will be able to
produce their own TV shows using digital cameras and home PC’s. Some might have a
broad view on television and consider anybody putting content online to be a broadcaster
whereas others might think these moving images are not worth to be called television.
These people fear that the increasing amount of control interactive television
programmes offer to the viewers/users will result in a situation where these viewers take
over the production of television and rule out the broadcasters and producers that were
traditionally in charge of the quality of television. It is still unsure what the new digital
programming will look like. Bill Gates suggests a function that allows you to run a version
of gone with the Wind with your head on Scarlett or Rhett’s body (Levy 1995, quoted in
Rackley 1998). Martin (1995, quoted in Rackley 1998) expects that the dissemination of
broadcast control to the people themselves could result in more opportunities for
television that is activist, educational and culturally sensitive. He mentions the American
Indian tribes who are currently using the Internet to show their tribes’ handicrafts and to
organize political seminars.
mass/personal
Through the use of satellites and VCRs television has become a global and mass medium
that reaches even into remote regions. Since the 1950’s, Television has become a mass
medium with mass audiences viewing the same types of popular television programming
(soaps, talk shows, game shows). The huge number of channels and the advent of digital
and interactive technology cause a fragmentation of the television audience. Audiences
have more and more possibilities to choose what they want and when they want to watch
it (DeFLeur and Dennis, 1996). Navigation systems and personal menus increasingly
assist the television viewer and simplify his or her choice for television programmes and
services. Traditional channels might even disappear or develop into a virtual, personal
channel based on the interests of the viewer/user, existing viewing behavior and
recommendations of trustworthy sources. The collective mass experience of television
changes to an individual experience. People could follow their own interests and time
schedules instead of being dependent on the formats and scheduling imposed by the
broadcasters.
After analyzing television with the prefixes discussed above, we can conclude that
television as we know today is no longer the ubiquitous mass medium we knew before.
Therefore, it is important to find a functional definition of television to enable the study
and analysis of the future of television. To find such a definition it is important to decide
which structural characteristics are fundamental for the understanding of the concept of
television. The technology for the transmission and receiving of television is not a
25
structural element of television and is not incorporated in the concept of television
suggested below.
Five structural characteristics of the concept of television:
In principle, television is..
•
public
Whether the orientation of the provider of television is public or commercial does not
matter for the definition of television as long as access to the programmes is not
private and not restricted to privileged groups of people.
•
transmission
Television (literally) is viewing at a distance, which means the transmission of signals
from a source to a receiver; the initiative is at the side of the source, though newer
types of television offer opportunities to react and interact. Increasingly the initiative
to watch/use the content is at the viewer/user’s side.
•
of audiovisual programs and services
One question here is, whether television means professional or amateurish television
(ME-TV or Personal TV) is also allowed to be called television? One of the definitions
of television mentioned in the beginning (‘the transmission of still or moving images
and sound to receivers that project a view of the images on a picture tube or screen
and re-create the sound’) does not mention anything about the necessity of a certain
amount of quality control or broadcasters’ influence. To be able to distinguish
television, however, from for example video mail - that could also fall under the broad
definition explained above – a minimal amount of editing or production is considered
necessary. This can be as minimal as the choice for the positioning of the cameras.
•
for a relatively large audience
Not necessarily broadcasting to a mass public. Narrowcasting to smaller audiences is
also television. At the very minimum, the audience has to consist of more than one
person; otherwise, it is difficult to distinguish television from for example videotelephony. The other distinguishing mark here is publicness.
Such a concept of television is necessary to be able to distinguish interactive television
from other media like for example video-telephony and e-mail with audiovisual messages
between individuals or groups, and from such matters like business television (in
principle not open to the public, although it is often called television). These structural
characteristics of television also enable us to have a more thorough discussion on the
future of (interactive) television.
2.5
Conclusion
Next to the traditional programming, future television will develop new programme
genres like virtual reality and personal television. Television as we know today will break
down into all kinds of different applications accessible via different technological systems
and used by different people in many ways. Opposed to traditional television, which was
central to the entertainment, education, information, leisure and social life of millions of
homes all over the world, some forms of television will reach a much smaller and specific
audience. The minimal and functional definition of television presented above will be the
only connection between these different forms of television.
26
3 Interactivity in social and communication science
3.1
Introduction
"Interactivity is a widely used term with an intuitive appeal but it is an underdefined
concept. As a way of thinking about communication, it has high face validity, but only
narrowly based explication, little consensus on meaning, and only recently emerging
empirical verification of actual role." (Rafaeli, 1988:110)
The concept of interactivity is supposed to be one of the most important characteristics
of new media (Van Dijk, 1997), but the conceptualisation of interactivity does not keep
step with the actual use of the word. "It is remarkable how bad the concept of
interactivity has been operationalized in communication science, the actual inventor of
the concept and amply using it, for instance in extensions to or alternatives for the
classical sender-message-receiver model and in the understanding of the new media."
(Van Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming) These new media, which open up the possibility for
various forms of input from users to the system, can hardly be described using traditional
one-way models and terminology. Existing media theory is increasingly less able to
explain current media phenomena. Therefore a thorough rethinking of all central models
and concepts is necessary to understand the use of these media. Both traditional and
new media, however, form part of a consumer's media behaviour. Especially with
interactive television, attention for the characteristics of traditional as well as new media
is crucial for a critical analysis of a combination of these two in interactive applications on
television. With the combined use of traditional mass communication theories and new
models adding new dimensions to these theories valuable information can be generated
to understand the opportunities of the new media.
This chapter is an attempt to track the concept of interactivity. Valuable insights that
contributed to the writing of this chapter have been borrowed from the article 'Searching
for the Holy Grail, Images of Interactive Television' by Van Dijk and De Vos
(forthcoming) and the writings of Jens Jensen (1999) who has made an excellent account
of the laborious search of social and communication scientists for a valid operational
definition of interactivity. Identical phrases have been put between quotation marks.
3.2
The concept of interactivity in social and communication science
“Communication science introduced the concept as a conjugation of the term interaction
in sociology and social psychology. Likewise, these disciplines have barely explicated this
concept either. The most far-reaching attempts came from action theories like symbolic
interactionism and theories of group dynamics. A number of distinguished sociologists
and social-psychologists gave their definition in the International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences, edition 1968. Here one is able to read that a process of actions by
actors guided by rules and symbols and occurring in a social system is the central point
of departure (Parsons, 1968: 434). So the concept belonged to models of action or
behaviour, sometimes completely operationalized like in Bales' interaction process
analysis. In the sociological and social-psychological definitions of interaction
communication is an integral part of action or behaviour. In communication science the
concept interaction – notably replaced by the term interactivity – is a special part of
communication. Communication scientists are referring to forms and patterns of
communication that are not interactive, such as the traditional press and broadcasting.
This inversion can be explained by the adoption of the most common object of
communication science: the study of communication means. Though it observes these
means both in mediated and face-to-face communication, the prominence of media has
always remained dominant in this discipline, particularly when it deals with interactivity.”
(Van Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming)
27
Taking a closer look at the collection of existing definitions of interactivity most often the
question is whether particular media are interactive. Jensen (1999) divided the existing
definitions into three categories. In the first category, the concept of interactivity is
defined as prototypic examples, in the second category as criteria, that is, as a given
feature or characteristic that must be fulfilled and in the last category interactivity is
defined as a continuum, that is, as a quality which can be present to a greater or lesser
degree. This division into categories of definitions will each be illustrated with a selection
of the existing concepts of interactivity.
A definition of the first category, by prototypic example, can be found in Durlak’s ‘A
Typology for Interactive Media’ where it says: “Interactive media systems include the
telephone; two-way television; audio conferencing systems; computers used for
communication; electronic mail; video text; and a variety of technologies that are used
to exchange information in the form of still images, line drawings, and data.” (Durlak
1987, in Jensen 1999). Prototypic definitions of interactivity like this one do not point out
which traits qualify a given media as interactive or which aspects connect them (Jensen,
1999). Therefore this definition cannot be considered very informative.
An example of the second type of definition, interactivity defined as criteria, can be found
in Miller’s writing. He defines the adjective ‘interactive’ as: ‘Involving the active
participation of the user in directing the flow of the computer or video program; a system
which exchanges information with the viewer, processing the viewer’s input in order to
generate the appropriate response within the context of the program…’. The term
‘interactive media’ is explained as: ‘Media which involve the viewer as a source of input
to determine the content and duration of a message, which permits individualized
program material’ (Miller 1987, in Jensen 1999). These two definitions have a strong
connection to specific technology, i.e. computer and video. Because of this technological
orientation these definitions contain the risk to become quickly outdated by technological
developments.
With the first category of ‘prototypic’ definitions and the second category of ‘criteria’
definitions it is not possible to differentiate between various forms and levels of
interactivity. Jensen’s first category comprises definitions where interactivity can be
present in varying degrees. This type of definitions can be structured by the number of
dimensions these concepts of interactivity include (1-dimensional, 2-dimensional… and ndimensional).
A one-dimensional concept of interactivity is given by Rogers (1986, in Jensen 1999). He
defines interactivity as “the capability of new communication systems (usually containing
a computer as a one component) to ‘talk back’ to the user, almost like an individual
participating in a conversation’ and ‘interactivity is a variable; some communication
technologies are relatively low in their degree of interactivity (for example, network
television), while others (such as computer bulletin boards) are more highly interactive.”
For a number of selected communication technologies, Rogers has created a scale, which
depicts ‘degrees of interactivity’ on a continuum from ‘low’ to ‘high’.
28
Degree of interactivity
Low
Press,
Radio,
TV,
Film,
etc.
High
Teletext
Computer communication
via videotext, computer
bulletin boards, electronic
messaging systems,
computer teleconferencing,
interactive cable TV, etc.
Figure 3.1: Rogers’ one-dimensional scale of ‘selected communication
technologies on an interactivity continuum’ (1987, in Jensen 1999)
The figure above shows that Roger’s concept of interactivity concentrates on humanmachine interaction. The consultative aspect of his concept of interactivity (selection
available between channels and programmes) qualifies transmission mass media such as
TV and radio as ‘interactive’ although to a lesser degree. This continuum of interactivity,
however, does not provide explicit criteria for the placement of the selected media, so it
cannot be easily applied to other communication technologies.
An example of a definition that provides exact criteria to classify interactivity is the
‘Nebraska Scale’, formulated in the early 1980’s by the Nebraska Videodisc Design
Group. The scale classifies four levels of interactivity based on configurations of videodisc
technology, the group’s central object of research. The levels can be summarized as
follows:
Level 0: Linear playback only.
Level 1: Linear playback plus search and automatic stops.
Level 2: Videodiscs controlled by a computer program placed either directly on the
videodisc or manually loaded…. They include all of the level 1 capabilities plus program
looping, branching and faster access time.
Level 3: Videodiscs controlled by an external computer…. More than one video discs can
be controlled by the same computer. Computer-generated text and graphics can be
superimposed over videodisc images…. A variety of user input devices can be employed
and user input can be registered and documented (Lambert 1987, in Jensen 1999).
Because of its close connections to a specific technology, the ‘Nebraska Scale’ has
become outdated by numerous technological developments. Another weakness of this
definition is its inability to provide enough insight into the forms of interaction possible
between users and machines (Looms 1993, in Jensen 1999).
The same risk of technological obsolesce holds for Schrape’s scale of interactivity (1995,
in Jensen 1999). He chose the technology of his time, interactive and digital television,
and defined five levels of interactivity:
Level 0: Turn on/turn off and change channel (zapping).
Level 1: A supply consists of more transmitted channels mutually displaced in time
(parallel transmitted TV, multi-channel TV, multi-perspective TV), between which the
viewer is able to choose.
Level 2: Transmission of optional relevant supplementary information to the TV-signal,
with or without relation to program (e.g. videotext).
Level 3: Any form of stored content by individual request (passive user orientation).
Level 4: Communicative interaction, active user orientation (direct return channel), twoway communication: e.g. videophone, interactive services etc.
29
An example of a 3-dimensional concept of interactivity can be found with Laurel (1991, in
Jensen 1999). Laurel argues that ‘interactivity exists on a continuum that could be
characterized by three variables’. The first variable is ‘frequency’, counting ‘how often
you could react’. The second variable is ‘range’, counting ‘how many choices were
available’ and the third variable is ‘significance’, meaning ‘how much the choices really
affect matters’. Resulting from these variables, a low degree of interactivity can be
described to a situation when the user has little opportunities to act, has only a few
choices available, and the choices he has have little or no impact on the situation. A
situation can be characterized as highly interactive when the user has the frequent ability
to act, has many choices to choose from, and these choices significantly influence the
situation. Jensen (1999) has constructed a graphical illustration of Laurel’s continuum of
interactivity, presented in figure 3.2.
The user has
- a frequent ability to act
- many choices
- great significance
high
high
Range
Significance
low
low
low
The user has
- little ability to act
- few choices
- little significance
Frequency
high
Figure 3.2: Jensen’s illustration of Laurel’s 3-dimensional continuum of
interactivity, consisting of: ‘frequency’, ‘range’ and ‘significance’.
Another multi-dimensional concept of interactivity is proposed by Goertz (1995, in Jensen
1999). He isolates four dimensions, which are said to be meaningful for interactivity: (1)
‘the degree of choices available’; (2) ‘the degree of modifiability’; (3) ‘the quantitative
number of the selections and modifications available’: (4) ‘the degree of linearity or nonlinearity’. These four dimensions make up continuums that are illustrated with scales.
The higher the value on the scale, the higher the amount of interactivity.
(1) The 'degree of choice available' concerns the choices offered by the medium being
used. Goertz defined to the following scale for this dimension:
0
No choice available except a decision about when the reception starts and ends...
1
all the basic changes available in the quality of the channel (such as: light/dark,
high/low or fast/slow),
2
As in 1, plus the ability to choose between selections in 1 choice dimension;
choices occur simultaneously (such as television or radio programs)...
3
As in 2, but the selections available within the choice dimension are not time
dependent (such as newspapers or video-on-demand),
4
As in 3, but there are two or more choice dimensions for a user to choose from
(e.g. the video games with a variety levels of play, forms of presentation, forms of
action and storylines to choose from).
(2) The dimension of modifiability refers to the user's own ability to modify existing
messages or add new content where these modifications and additions, are saved and
stored for other users. Goertz proposes the following scale:
0
No modification possible with the exception of storing or erasing messages,
30
1
Manipulation of messages is possible (e.g. through the choice of sound or color),
2
Modification to some degree of random additions, changes, or erasure of content
is possible,
3
Modification possible through random additions to, changes in, or erasure of any
type of content (e.g. computer word processors or graphics software, and in most
media as a means of communication.)
(3) The third dimension refers to the quantitative number of selections possible within
each of the available dimensions. The scale for this dimension is as follows:
0
No choice is possible
1
Some choice available (between 2 and 10 choices) within at least one selection or
modification dimension (e.g. television reception via terrestrial frequencies),
2
As in 1, plus more than 10 choices within one selection or modification dimension
(a reader can choose from several hundred newspaper articles and reviews,
teletext offers more than 100 pages though no other choices are available),
3
More than 10 choices available in more than two selection and or modification
dimensions (limited selection available as e.g. in the branched choices...
or: an infinite or seamless selection available from one selection or modification
dimension respectively (e.g. video games which allow the user to write in a
random name at the beginning),
4
An infinite or seamless selection available from all selection and/or modification
possibilities (applies to media uses which allow participants random messages,
e.g. word processing programs, but first actually for all media which function as a
means of communication).
(4) the last dimension, the 'degree of linearity/non-linearity' functions as a measure of
the user's influence on the time, tempo and progression of the reception or
communication.
0
The time and order of the material is completely controlled by the information
producer or the sender (e.g. television, radio, film),
1
The order of the material is determined by the information producer or sender,
the user initiates the communication process and can stop or re-start it (video,
records, other sound media),
2
As in 1,but the user determines the tempo of the reception (e.g. books),
3
As in 2, the user can select single elements of information which have little or no
connection to each other (e.g. newspapers),
4
As in 3, the user can now retrieve elements of information, which are highly
connected (e.g. references in an encyclopedia or via hypertext functions on a
World Wide Web site).
With these four dimensions of interactivity Goertz wanted to create the opportunity to
differentiate between various (interactive) media. A multiplication of the number of
values on each of his dimensions, however, results in 500 possible combinations. Such a
detailed typology of (interactive) media would only increase the complexity, instead of
decrease it. Jensen (1999) notes that Goertz's third dimension (the 'quantitative number
of selections and modifications available') and fourth dimension (the 'degree of
linearity/non-linearity') conflict with the two first dimensions, which also apply to
selection and modification possibilities. Maybe Goertz struggles with the same problem,
because the graphical illustration of his concept of interactivity represents only the first
to dimensions. Twenty-one specific media uses are placed in a 2-dimensional matrix
shown in figure 3.3.
31
Selection
possibilities/
Modification
possibilities
0
0
1
Cinema
Book: novel
2
3
4
Television,
Terrestrial
TV,
Cable TV,
Radio.
Pay-per-view
Newspapers,
Videotext,
Book: nonfiction
Information via
online service,
VR-walkthrough, e.g.
virtual museum
Homebanking
Video game
Mailbox
VR-walkthrough, e.g.
office
arrangements
CONVERSATION
Electronic wordprocessing,
TELEPHONE,
VIDEOCONFERENCE
1
2
3
E-mail
Figure 3.3: Goertz’s placement of 21 specific media uses based on the
dimensions ‘degree of selections available’ and ‘degree of modifiability’ (1995)
From Goertz's map of (interactive) media it can be concluded that classical broadcast
media such as radio and television are judged to have a certain - relatively low measure of interactivity and media which use interpersonal communication (in other
words, conversational media) are considered to have the highest degree of interactivity
(Jensen, 1999).
Next to Goertz's 4-dimensional concept there are more multidimensional concepts of
interactivity (e.g. Dunn 1984, Heeter 1989), which will not be dealt with here. These
concepts aim to provide a detailed division of interactive media, but instead they share
the problem that the many dimensions and the high degree of complexity make it very
difficult to deal with the concept on a practical basis.
Though some definitions of interactivity are even more complex than others and have
more dimensions to explain interactivity, the different concepts presented above have a
strong focus on the medium and the technology. From this perspective the medium
influences the level of interactivity to a great extent and there is few or little attention for
other factors that might be influencing interactivity.
3.3
A feedback view on interactivity
“Many definitions of the concept interactivity are a supplement to the sender-messagereceiver model. A feedback or reactions by receivers are added. In this way definitions of
interactivity remain in the confines of the transmission model so characteristic to most of
communication science. This also applies to one of the most popular definitions of
interactivity in communication science, Rafaeli's: "Interactivity is an expression of the
extent that in a given series of communication exchanges, any third (or later)
transmission (or message) is related to the degree to which previous exchanges referred
to even earlier transmissions." (Rafaeli, 1988: 111)." (Van Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming).
Rafaeli's one-dimensional definition of 'interactivity' recognises three progressive levels
on a continuum.
32
(1) Two-way communication takes place when messages are delivered both ways.
(2) Reactive communication also requires that a later message reacts to previous
messages.
(3) Full interactivity requires that a later message responds to a sequence of previous
messages.
This definition of 'interactivity' centres on the concept 'responsiveness' or 'feedback',
therefore Rafaeli's graphical illustration of 'interactivity' reveals close resemblance to the
traditional transmission model of communication. In each of the three levels, person (P)
and other (O) are engaged in communication. The messages (M) are numbered by
temporal sequence (Mj). The three levels are illustrated in figure 3.4.
Two-way communication
P
P
M1
P
M3
M2
M4
P
M5
O
O
P
Mj-1
…
O
Mj
O
Reactive communication
P
P[M2]
M1
P[M4]
M3
M2
M4
P[Mj-2]
M5
O[M3]
O[M1]
P
Mj-1
…
O
Mj
O[Mj-1]
Interactive communication
P
P
M1
M2
O[M1]
P
M3
M4
O[M3/M2/M1]
…
M5
…
O[M5/M4/M3/M2/M1]
P
Mj
O[Mj-1/…M1]
Figure 3.4: Rafaeli's model of interactivity collaborated in three progressive
levels, on the continuum: two-way communication, reactive communication and
interactive communication (Rafaeli, 1988:120).
3.4
Interactivity related to the information traffic patterns
Jensen distinguishes between different forms of interactivity; "interactivity which consists
of a choice from a selection of available information content; interactivity which consists
of producing information via input to a system, and interactivity which consists of the
system's ability to adapt and respond to a user" (Jensen, 1999:183). "He proposes to
take the information traffic patterns of Bordewijk and Van Kaam (allocution or
transmission, consultation, registration and conversation) to assess whether particular
media are interactive." (Van Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming). He defines interactivity as: “A
measure of a media's potential ability to let the user exert an influence on the content
and/or form of the mediated communication”. This concept of interactivity is divided into
the following four dimensions:
33
(1) Transmissional interactivity - a measure of media's potential ability to let the user
choose from a continuous stream of information in a one-way media system without a
return channel and therefore without a possibility for making requests (e.g. teletext,
near-video-on-demand, be-your-own-editor, multi-channel systems, datacasting),
multicasting.)
(2) Consultational interactivity - a measure of media's potential ability to let the user
choose, by request, from an existing selection of preproduced information in a two-way
media system with a return channel (video-on-demand, online information services, CDROM encyclopaedias, FTP, WWW, Gopher, etc.)
(3) Conversational interactivity - a measure of a media's potential ability to let the user
produce and input his/her own information in a two-way media system, be it stored or in
real-time (video conferencing systems, newsgroups, e-mail, mailing lists, etc.).
(4) Registrational interactivity - a measure of a media's potential ability to register
information from and thereby also adapt and/or respond to a given user's needs and
actions, whether they be the user's explicit choice of communication method or the
system's built-in ability to automatically 'sense' and adapt (surveillance systems,
intelligent agents, intelligence guides or intelligent interfaces, etc.).
Since transmissional and consultational interactivity both concern the availability of
choice- respectively with and without request – Jensen represents them within the same
(selection) dimension. He designed a 3-dimensional graphic model-an ‘interactivity cube’to represent the four types of interactivity. As presented in the figures 3.5 and 3.6 this
results in 12 different types of interactive media.
conversational
interactivity
conversational
interactivity
registrational
interactivity
-conversational
interactivity
-selection
transmissional
interactivity
consultational
interactivity
-registrational
interactivity
registrational
interactivity
selective
interactivity
Figure 3.5: Jensen’s ‘cube of interactivity’: a 3-dimensional representation of
the dimensions of interactivity (Jensen, 1999:184-185)
34
conversational
interactivity
conversational
interactivity
-conversational
interactivity
Electronic
word
processing
and other
PC tools
TV-based
interactive
fiction
Shared facility
Intelligent
network games
Intelligent
agents Bulletin
Boards Systems
Surveillance &
registration
systems,
logging of
computer
system
Polling
Wagering
Pay-per-view
Intelligent video
games
Internet cookies
Home-shopping
& Banking
voice response
-selection
conversational
interactivity
conversational
interactivity
-conversational
interactivity
transmissional
interactivity
Telephone
E-mail
Chat
Fax
Videoconferencing
Multicasting
Terrestrial TV
Movie
Novel
Terrestrial
radio
Multichannel
TV, teletext
Near-Video-OnDemand
Be-Your –OwnEditor
Games-OnDemand
-selection
transmissional
interactivity
consultational
interactivity
registrational
interactivity
Multiuser
network games
Virtual
Reality walks
Newsgroups
True-Video-OnDemand News-,
Sports-OnDemand
Interactive
fiction Online
information
hypermedia
cdroms,WWW
consultational
interactivity
-registrational
interactivity
selective
interactivity
Figure 3.6: Jensen’s ‘cube of interactivity’: a 3-dimensional representation of
the dimensions of interactivity (Jensen, 1999:184-185)
35
3.5
Towards a contextual model of interactivity
From the collection of different concepts of interactivity, discussed above, it appears how
much communication science sticks to media and the transmission model and that the
social science concept is not sufficient to explain media behavior. “Jensen proposes to
make a conceptual separation between the sociological concept of interaction dealing
with action and the communication-scientific concept of interactivity to be reserved for
mediated communication. With all our respect for the conceptual clarification made by
Jensen we have to say that we fundamentally disagree with his proposal. Here we argue
for a contextual model integrating a sociological, social-psychological and communication
scientific definition of interactivity. This model fits to an alternative approach in
communication science not primarily defining communication as transmission but as a
symbolic process of actors continually producing, reproducing and transforming reality
(Carey, 1989).” (Van Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming). The concept proposed here starts
from the idea of interactivity as the creation of a mediated environment to be
experienced in particular social contexts proposed by Steuer, Hanssen, Jankowski and
Etienne. The importance of social contexts is also stressed by Leeuwis (1996:86) who
discusses various shortcomings in the manner adoption of communication technologies
has been explained in communication studies. He identifies a number of ways in which
communication technologies may fail to anticipate the environment in which they are
supposed to be used. "In the last decades the tradition of mass communication in
communication science already has been challenged by approaches of the so-called
active receiver in everyday environments." (Van Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming). They have
to be extended with a broad approach of user contexts in both old and new media.
In the next two sections two concepts of interactivity, which start from the idea of
interactivity as the creation of a mediated environment, will be discussed. First, Steuer's
notion of mediated experiences, and second the relational model of Hansen, Jankowski
and Etienne.
3.6
The concept of mediated environments
Steuer (1995) focuses attention on the relationship between an individual who is both a
sender and a receiver, and on the mediated environment with which he or she interacts
in face-to-interface communication. He suggests an alternative view of mediated
communication, and draws attention to a fundamental difference with conventional
media. "Traditionally, the process of communication is described in terms of the
transmission of information, as a process linking sender and receiver. Media are
therefore important only as a conduit, as a means of connecting sender and receiver, and
are only interesting to the extent that they contribute to or otherwise interfere with
transmission of the message from sender to receiver." (Steuer, 1995:37). In contrast,
Steuer suggests that: "Information is not transmitted from sender to receiver; rather,
mediated environments are created and then experienced." (Steuer, 1995:37)
3.7
The relational model of interactivity
Based on Rafaeli's feedback view on interactivity and Steuer's concept of mediated
environments, Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne (1995) have developed a relational
model for distinguishing face-to-face from face-to-interface communication forms. To
them the four structural features of interactivity are: user, message, medium and
environment. The relational model of interactivity suggests, "how these components
interrelate in both unmediated (face-to-face communication) and mediated (face-tointerface communication) communication settings, and how relationships differ between
these two forms of communication." (Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne, 1995:67). This
model of interactivity concerns the construction of mediated environments experienced
by users sharing information. These environments should not be reduced to the medium
of transmission or processing used. The concept of interactivity is not considered to be a
36
part of multimedia technology, but an element, which may emerge in greater or lesser
degree when the technology is employed in a particular setting. The relational model
illuminates the possibility of multiple mediated environments, i.e. symbolic agreements
and rituals (implicitly) agreed upon by the communicators - senders and receivers in
traditional terminology. The ritual, symbolic or cultural concept of communication (and
interactivity) was elaborated before by James Carey in Communication as Culture
(1989).
Part I of the figure is based upon traditional models of communication from sender to
receiver, and presents a relational model of face-to-face communication. In part II a
relational model of face-to-interface communication is suggested that illustrates the
fundamental difference with the transmission notion of communication.
Part I: face-to-face communication process
sender
A
message
content
receiver
B
Part II: face-to-interface communication process
individual
individual
C
D
content 1
mediated environment I
content 2
mediated environment II
content n
mediated environment N
environment
Figure 3.7: Relational model for face-to-face and face-to-interface
communication (Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne, 1995:68)
The essential difference between parts I and II of the figure is that in the second part
information is no longer transmitted from sender to receiver. In this alternative view
mediated environments are created and then experienced through the sharing of
information. Here, the characteristics of the mediated environment and the relationship
of individuals to that environment are central.
Part II of the figure shows a series of mediated environments (represented as boxes
drawn with broken lines) Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne explain these boxes as follows:
"An individual can add information to the system in different contexts. At the same time,
the person can extract information from other contexts, and do so outside the physical
37
reality within which the user is situated (the solid line box). In the case of face-tointerface communication, the content situated in another environment can take on
another meaning." (Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne, 1995:69).
3.8
Criteria for a concept of interactivity
Looking back on the preceding sections of this chapter, an important question is: what
criteria should a concept of interactivity have to meet to enable the analysis of new
media like interactive television? Below four criteria are discussed, as presented by Van
Dijk & De Vos (forthcoming).
First of all, it should be appropriate for a plurality of kinds of interaction and
communication:
1. human-human interaction (face-to-face communication),
2. human-medium-human interaction (mass communication and telecommunication,
a.o. computer-mediated communication),
3. human-medium interaction (a.o. human-computer interaction).
This integration is required because increasingly social reality will combine virtual and
organic, mediated and face-to-face environments.
A broad approach as suggested above just has to contain more dimensions. Jensen
describes how every subsequent operational definition of the concept has resulted in a
growing number of dimensions.
In the third place the concept has to be appropriate in describing a process. In every
definition of interaction and interactivity there is some sequence of communicative
actions.
Finally, the concept should produce criteria helping us to assess whether a particular
communication or the use of a particular medium is more or less interactive. This is
needed to compare different forms of media and communication by means of
instruments able to measure interactivity in the final stage. Jensen also describes that a
growing number of definitions distinguish between levels of interactivity.
3.9
Van Dijk’s contextual model of interactivity
“Van Dijk (1991/1997, 1999) has offered the beginnings of a conceptualization of
interactivity that might be able to meet these conditions. He defines four levels of
interactivity (two-sided- or multilateral communication, synchronicity, control and
understanding) as dimensions of space, time, behaviour and a mental dimension
respectively. These levels are supposed to be cumulative both within and between levels.
For example, there is no synchronicity and control without two-way communication, and
there are different levels of control and understanding in their own right. This definition
has been specified in a number of indices or indicators. In subsequent research these
indices will be operationalized in measuring instruments appropriate for the social context
and the particular medium concerned. These indices are supposed to be suitable for both
face-to-face and mediated communication, for instance both the interactivity of a
working group at the university and a service on the Internet. Taking this direction it will
appear that face-to-face communication is not by all means more interactive than
mediated communication. This is the face-to-face bias of many communication theories
(Van Dijk 1991/1997,1999).” (Van Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming). Table 1 contains the
result of making these indices of interactivity.
38
DIMENSIONS
INDICES
1. MULTILATERALNESS
(spatial dimension)
a. number of actors in the communication as a
limited set of communicative acts (at least two
actors)
b. number of actions in the communication (at least
two)
c. number of turns in the communication (action,
reaction, reaction to reaction etc. (at least 1
reaction)
d. distribution of the number of actions in the
communication (1-1 until n –1; unequal à equal;
at least 1 action of each actor)
e. distribution of the size and quality of actions in the
communication in signs or codes (e.g. bytes) and
kinds of data (images, sound, text, numerical
data)
2. SYNCHRONICITY
AND SPACE OF TIME
(time dimension)
a. the number of time units between a turn (from 0
until n; from synchronous to asynchronous)
b. distribution of the size of actions in the
communication in time units (at least 1 time unit)
3. CONTROLLING
ACTION
(behavioural dimension)
a. degree of equality in choosing turns in the
communication
b. degree of equality in choosing the time, speed and
continuation of the communication
c. degree of equality in choosing the form and
content of the communication
d. degree of equality in choosing changes in the form
and content of the communication
4. UNDERSTANDING
ACTION
(mental dimension)
a. extent of understanding the meaning of actions of
other actors (from minimal to complete)
b. extent of understanding the context of actions of
other actors (from none to complete)
c. speed of adaptation of understanding (a. and b.)
with changing meanings and contexts
Table 3.1: Van Dijk’s index of the concept of interactivity with four levels (Van
Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming)
Below Van Dijk’s four levels of interactivity are explained into further detail (Van Dijk &
De Vos, forthcoming):
Two-sided- or multilateralness. A primary definition of interactive media is activity in two
or more directions. At least two actors and two actions are involved: a supplier or sender
transmits signals and a user or receiver returns signals in this way becoming a sender
himself or herself. The number of turns varies and depends upon the number of choices
the user can make (for ITV this can be: programmes, additional information, camera
angles etc.).
39
Synchronicity and space of time. All social and communication scientists agree that the
immediate succession of action and reaction reinforces interactivity. Asynchronous
communication like in using answering devices or e-mail easily leads to a rupture of
interaction, a lesser grip on it or misunderstandings (corresponding to the two levels of
interactivity described below).
Controlling action. The extent of control of the (inter)action process by people is the most
important dimension of interactivity in communication science. So much is clear from
Jensen’s overview. His own suggestion to take patterns of information traffic as a point of
departure also belongs to the dimension of control as these patterns deal with the central
or local control of information exchange. The importance of the dimension of control in
communication science can be explained by the central role of media characteristics in
this discipline. However, control of action is just as well a characteristic of face-to-face
communication.
Understanding action. The level of understanding interactors are able to derive from
actions and to locate against a background of experiences and circumstances (context) is
the most important difference between face-to-face and mediated communication
(Suchman, 1987).
3.10 Conclusion
The different definitions of interactivity discussed in this chapter have shed some light on
the condition of the existing conceptualisation of interactivity. The exploration ranged
from definitions focusing on media and technology only, towards definitions paying more
attention to the context of media use and the creation of mediated environments. With
Van Dijk's four levels of interactivity (two-sided- or multilateral communication,
synchronicity, control and understanding), this quest resulted in a contextual model of
interactivity that is supposed to be suitable for both face-to-face and mediated
communication. In the next chapter the understanding of interactivity gained in this
chapter will be extended to a more thorough understanding of the concept of interactive
television.
40
4 Interactive television
4.1
Introduction
While Van Dijk’s definition of interactivity is used for the operational definition of this
concept, here the relational model of Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne will be elaborated
to develop a contextual model for interactive television. Starting from the perspective of
the concrete situation of interactive television, a specification of the usage contexts of
interactive television and an integration (instead of a separation) of face-to-face and
face-to-interface communication will add to this contextual model for interactive
television.
This approach first of all means that the primary individual interface with television
(operation and remote control) should be integrated with the social environment of
viewing that is the effects of other people present in the user context, first of all the
home. This integrated approach to interactive television also means, as James Stewart
(1998) stated: “The development of a hybrid media of the Web and the TV is not the
simple knitting together of technology. It needs a rethinking of content, and of how we
use television and interactive media.” Early models of interactive television were based
on the television being the sole interactive platform in the home. Today however, home
computers and Internet connections are becoming increasingly affordable and
widespread, and look like taking over this interactive TV model. From this perspective, it
is necessary to integrate the PC as well as the TV in our thinking about interactive
television, because they both influence the future of ITV.
4.2
Towards a contextual model for interactive television
To establish a contextual model for interactive television, the following extensions to the
relational model of Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne (1996) are proposed:
•
In the relational model of Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne, the messages take on
meaning in a specific social and cognitive context, the ‘real world’. For a thorough
understanding of the potential interactivity in interactive television settings it
might be better, however, to further specify this context of use. On a micro level,
this means a specification into the social and spatial contexts of interactive
television. On a macro level, this means the wider social context of culture that
influences the micro social contexts.
•
The relational model of Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne consists of two parts that
discriminate between face-to-face and face-to-interface communication processes
and assign only the last one to communication via multimedia systems. The
influence of face-to-face communication on the mediated environment, however,
must not be underestimated. Face-to-face communication processes between
individuals also influence the creation and experience of mediated environments
(for example social talk while using ITV in companionship). Therefore, an
integrated study of both face-to-face and face-to-interface communication is
recommended.
With the incorporation of these two notions the relational model would do more justice to
the practice of ITV use and it would stimulate the development of more insight in the
potential interactivity in television settings.
4.2.1 The analysis of the context of media use.
As elaborated in chapter 3, we do not consider interactivity primarily a characteristic of
media, but of persons and media brought together in a particular situation. Van Dijk’s
definition of interactivity, explains that the fourth and highest level of interactivity (the
41
mental dimension) depends on the amount of understanding the interactors are able to
derive from actions and to locate against the background of experiences and
circumstances (context). A conceptualization of the usage context of ITV, then, can be
very useful to develop successful ITV applications. Existing theories about interactivity
are too much focused on a concept of interactivity detached from the context and too
much focused on the technology. Especially when technology is changing very fast like it
does with ITV it could be useful to develop a concept that depends not too much on
technology.
A framework for the analysis of the context of media use, and in particular television, is
provided by Lull (1990). He regards characteristic patterns of audience involvement with
television as rituals that are manifestations of micro social (family) and macro social
(cultural) rules. “‘Ritual’ refers to repeated, regular family activity, elevated to a near
ceremonial level because of the cultural power of television. ‘Rules’ are socially
coordinated understandings that promote patterned behavior, including routine acts of
contact with the mass media” (Lull 1990). Television plays a number of important social
roles for viewing groups, both structural and relational. For example, even where several
people are in the room at the same time, not everyone will be watching what they want,
or watching at all. Everyone knows the phenomenon of one family member (very often
the husband/father) with the remote control, surfing across the channels, the others
either watching passively or engaging in a dialogue about what is coming on. Most often,
the others ignore the TV, continuing some other activity (Lull 1990 in Stewart 1998).
Indeed gender studies of use of television (e.g. Morley, 1986) show many women do not
have time to watch television as a sole activity, but are obliged to continue working on
other tasks. The way television is integrated into family routines is influenced by and
reflects broader cultural themes of the society. For example, in European culture, reading
is widely considered to be superior to the use of television, a dominant cultural view that
influences both media policy and viewer activity (Lull, 1990).
Lull focuses his study on the rituals of television use in the family and therefore the
analysis is mainly framed around the analytical level of the household, including both
family members and the physical location. He describes the household as “a complex
mixture of people, social roles, power relations, routine activities, processes of
interpersonal communication, ecological factors that characterize the home environment,
and technological devices and appliances that exist there. The home surrounds viewers,
and viewing, with all the intricacies and complications of family life.”
This framework could also be useful for the study of the context of ITV. The context of
ITV, however, cannot be limited to the household alone. Technological developments
create new possibilities to use television at work or on the way. Increasingly, the
domestic character of television opens up to other contexts of use. Lull’s definition of the
household, however, can easily be applied to other usage contexts of ITV, because it
contains structural characteristics of contexts that are not only crucial to the household.
This investigation, however, concentrates on the context of the home. The fact that the
development of new applications implies other usage contexts only increases the
necessity to include the context in future theoretical development of interactive
television.
In this chapter no further attention will be paid to the wider context of culture. As
described above, however, its influence is also to be observed in a study of the micro
level media contexts. Focusing on the concrete situation of interactive television use, the
term context acquires at least two meanings here: the social context of companionship
and the spatial context of use of ITV. The social context of companionship considers the
social character of using or viewing ITV, and distinguishes between viewing or using
alone or in company. Concerning the home as the spatial usage context, it is possible to
distinguish between viewing or using ITV in the living room, in individual rooms like the
study, or in all rooms of the home.
Insight in the social contexts of ITV can only be acquired by examining the social use of
both the television and the computer (including the WWW). First, consider the social
42
context of television. Traditionally television is a social activity, a family pastime.
“Television provides opportunities for family members or friends communally to
experience entertainment or informational programmes.” (Lull, in Morley 1986).
Individual viewing, however, is becoming increasingly common. With changes in living
conditions and cheap TV sets, we are no longer obliged to watch television in groups.
Many homes have two or three television sets and, contrary to the early days of
television, there is an enormous and diverse offer of television programming. This
enables people to watch the programmes of their own interest without having to discuss
this with the other(s). More and more people are living alone, and are able to afford
television and new media technology. For them, television can also be a solitary
occupation, especially for the old and the young single person. Besides this, television
can also be used for activities other than watching programmes, such as teletext and
video games. “Video games can be a solitary entertainment, frequently sitting much
closer to the screen than for viewing, or a group entertainment, watching others play or
playing multi user games” (Stewart, 1998). From this short summary of the social
context of television it can be concluded that television is both used individually as
socially.
Just like television, the World Wide Web, and other interactive services for the computer,
can be used both in company and solitary. Surfing the WWW most of the time is an
individual activity and can be very passive, but it can also be viewed or used socially.
Increasingly, WWW content is used in groups around a computer, just as video games
and CD ROM products are (J. Walter Thompson research 1996, in Stewart 1998).
“Groups can use interactive products in the same way as they use TV - as passive
viewers of one user interacting or as a co-operative group. Most Internet devices only
have one controller - the keyboard and mouse, but this is undoubtedly a temporary
phenomenon - games consoles are routinely equipped with multiple controllers, because
the content permits it and the users demand them.” “For the moment one can only use
the content that is available, which is weak in products designed for group use and really
engaging interactive content” (Stewart, 1998).
Judging on the way television and the World Wide Web are used today, a logical
conclusion would be that ITV will be used in both social contexts too. The practice of
viewing and using ITV will have to show it. On the one hand, ITV could become a very
individual activity, because of the possibilities to customize the content to one's own
personal interests. On the other hand, the development of multi user devices and
interfaces that stimulate group use of ITV could enhance the social character of
Traditionally the spatial context of television has been the living room. The increasing
number of television sets in the home has spread the activity of watching television into
for example the bedrooms and the kitchen. New applications for television also create
other contexts of use. For example, TV at the office could be data streaming (push)
applications, similar in function to services like PointcastTM (www.pointcast.com) and
BackWeb (www.backweb.com), providing continual text updating along the perimeter of
the computer screen while optional video (television) broadcasts are displayed in a video
window (Mark Weiss, 1998). The computer and the WWW are most often used in the
study (if there is any) or in the living room (Nationale Internet Monitor, 1997). Taking
this into consideration, the spatial contexts of interactive television can be as diverse as
the contexts of the television and the computer. Some people expect that viewing and
using ITV will take place in the living room, just like traditional television. Others
anticipate a shift to individual rooms like the study, multifunctional use in all rooms of
the home, or ITV applications for use at work.
4.2.2 Integration of face-to-face and face-to-interface communication processes
The relational model of Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne consists of two parts that
discriminate between face-to-face and face-to-interface communication processes and
assign only the last one to communication via multimedia systems. The influence of face© Loes de vos, 2000
43
to-face communication on the mediated environment, however, must not be
underestimated. Face-to-face communication processes between individuals also
influence the creation and experience of mediated environments (for example social talk
while using ITV in companionship). For a better understanding of communication via
multimedia systems, Van Dijk and De Vos (forthcoming) do not distinguish between faceto-face and face-to-interface communication, but between human-human interaction
(face-to-face communication), human-medium interaction (a.o. human-computer
interaction) and human-medium-human interaction (mass communication and
telecommunication, a.o. computer-mediated communication). An integrated study of
these three kinds of interaction and communication is recommended for the
understanding of communication via multimedia systems. This integration is required
because increasingly social reality will combine virtual and organic, mediated and faceto-face environments. (Van Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming).
This integrated approach will be elaborated and illustrated describing ITV. Figures 4.1
and 4.2 explain the kinds of interaction involved in using the television and the
computer. From these figures, a schematic representation of the interaction processes
involved with interactive television will be composed.
TV
a
other
b
viewer
b
other
Figure 4.1 : Kinds of interaction involved with television
The following kinds of interaction are involved with television:
a. Human-medium interaction, but with a low level of interactivity (teletext for
example) or no interactivity at all according to the contextual model of Jan van
Dijk, discussed above.
b. Human-human interaction with (an)other person(s) in the same room (e.g.
discussions about the selection of programming or the quality of programming)
other(s)
b
PC
a
user
Figure 4.2 : Kinds of interaction involved with the computer
The following kinds of interaction are involved with the computer:
a. Human-medium interaction from the user with the computer (e.g. manipulating
and saving information).
44
b. With the advent of the Internet with e-mail and chatboxes also human-mediumhuman interaction with others in virtual environments.
other(s)
c
ITV
d
other
b
a
user
d
b
other
Figure 4.3 : Kinds of interaction involved with interactive television
Interactive television, as illustrated above, can be considered as a combination of the
kinds of interaction involved with the television and the computer.
a. human-medium interaction with the ITV-system (whatever technological
configuration that may be).
b. human-human interaction in the physical environment.
c. human-medium-human interaction with others in virtual environments. Humanmedium-human in ITV also becomes interaction between users and programme
makers/senders.
d. with multiple input devices (e.g. multiple keyboards and joysticks)it will be
possible to interact with the ITV system with multiple persons in the physical
environment, at the same time (for example multiplayer video games). With a
network connection for real-time communication, the size of the group of users in
the physical environment could be extended with others in a virtual environment.
With the current rate of technological change, the box or screen used for ITV will change
continuously. To create a technology independent schematic figure of interactive
television, the technological specifications are not included. The influence of technology,
however, must not be ruled out. Technological developments like for example multi-user
devices create opportunities for group use of ITV. At the same time an increase in
bandwidth will provide users with more capacity to upload information, for example to
send home-made videos. In this way technological developments could stimulate the
amount of influence users have on the interaction process.
45
4.2.3 A contextual model of interactive television
Figure 4.4 represents a contextual model of ITV combining the notion of social and
spatial contexts of ITV with the notion of ITV as an integration of human-human
interaction, human-medium interaction and human-medium-human interaction.
context 1b:
(household/work/transport location)
other(s)
C
ITV programmes
and services
mediated environment
A
individual
A
B
other(s)
context 1a:
(household/work/transport location)
context 2:
(culture)
Figure 4.4: Contextual model for interactive television
Like in the relational model of Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne (1996) the concept of
mediated environments created and then experienced through the sharing of
information, is also central to this contextual model for interactive television. An
individual can add information to the ITV system in different contexts. These contexts
can be divided into the spatial context of household, work or transport location (context
1a) and the social contexts of using ITV individually or in company. Relation A suggests
that a user can extract information from a mediated environment, but also add
information to this mediated environment (see the arrows in both directions). This
human-medium interaction is an individual activity. It becomes a social activity when
there is human-human communication with (an)other person(s) in the same spatial
context (see relation B). Multi-user devices create opportunities for these users to be
engaged in the same mediated environment. The communication processes in context
1a can be extended to human-medium-human communication (see relation C) with
(an)other person(s) in other spatial contexts (represented as context 1b). They share the
same virtual reality, but not the same physical reality. The wider social context of culture
(represented as context 2), however, surrounds the spatial and social contexts on the
micro-level of the concrete situation.
4.3
Conclusion
In this chapter, we took a closer look at the usage contexts of the television and the
computer (also WWW) to develop an understanding of the usage contexts of interactive
television. From a short summary of usage contexts, it appeared that the television and
46
the computer are used both socially and individually and increasingly in multiple spatial
contexts. Together with the proposed integration of human-medium, human-human and
human-medium-human interaction, a contextual model of interactive television has been
developed. Along with this model a contextual approach to the development of
interactive television programmes and services is proclaimed. If developers of interactive
television would be aware of the contexts of the use of their programmes and services
they would develop more insight in the potential interactivity in interactive television
settings. Their designs should take account of this context of use as much as for
individual viewers/users, because the success of ITV programmes and services will
depend on their fit within the everyday practice of viewers/users.
47
PART II
48
5 Research Methodology
5.1
Introduction
For the purpose of this investigation a lot of publications, news articles and research
reports were read and several discussions and conferences were attended. The amount
of different definitions and predictions of interactive television resulting from this was
really astonishing. As stated before, the amount of different perspectives on interactive
television, inspired to explore this subject of conceptualization to a greater extent.
According to the model of conceptualization described before, the changing and shifting
ideas of professionals and scholars dealing with the subject, about the use of ITV is
influenced by the meaning these professionals and scholars attach to the concept of
interactive television. After the scientific investigation of the existing concepts of
interactivity in social and communication science in Part I, the empirical investigation
focuses on the conceptualization at the side of providers of interactive television
programmes, services and navigation systems.
5.2
Data collection
After the study of different kinds of related literature, an online qualitative questionnaire
has been set up to make an inventory of the different perspectives on interactive
television that exist among providers of interactive television programmes, services and
navigation systems. These providers of interactive television, as defined above, make up
the population of this research. The online survey is a research method that increasingly
challenges traditional survey methods. The Web's rapid growth rate and demographic
shift towards a more mainstream audience makes it an appealing survey tool. Due to
convenient, verifiable, low-cost delivery and return systems as well as easy access and
feedback mechanisms an online questionnaire is very attractive to collect large numbers
of data from respondents all over the world. However, recent studies have shown that a
number of methodological hurdles must be overcome, before the Web can become a
viable survey instrument. Some of the major concerns of online surveying include
sampling, response rate, generalizability, response duplication, and survey design
(Johnson and Kaye, 1999). To overcome these methodological problems Johnson and
Kaye have composed a very useful list of recommendations for the construction of online
surveys.
Unlike telephone and mail surveys in which samples can be produced through census
lists random digit dialing, the Web has no central registry of users. Therefore defining a
sampling frame and ensuring randomness and representativeness is very difficult in the
electronic environment. For this survey browsing the Internet, using lists of conference
participants and asking people working in this business resulted in information of 165
companies deployed in interactive television. Section 5.2.1 contains a more detailed
description of the selection of respondents. These 165 potential respondents were invited
to participate in the questionnaire. When a sample has been defined it is important not to
‘flame’ the sample with unsolicited questionnaires without advance warnings, this could
negatively influence the response rate. Therefore an invitation e-mail was sent explaining
the purpose of the survey and providing a link to the website with extra background
information. Via this website an online version of the questionnaire was available for
those respondents who preferred to fill out the questions online. For offline completion a
questionnaire in rtf-format was also attached to the invitation e-mail. The rich text
format is a general standard for exchanging texts between different computer platforms
(PC and Apple). The design of the questionnaire is also very important. As with
traditional paper surveys, online questionnaires must be designed so that they are easy
to complete, short, and concise (see for more information section 5.2.3).
49
A disadvantage of a fixed questionnaire, whether online or not, is that it often results in
quite superficial information. While the argumentations of the respondents were most
valuable for this research we chose to design the questionnaire with open questions. On
top of the questionnaire, 7 preparatory interviews with providers of interactive television
were taken to gather some more background information for the development of the
questionnaire.
5.2.1 Selection of respondents
The target group of respondents was composed of experts of ITV representing companies
engaged with the design and operation of programmes, services and navigation systems
for ITV. For the selection of the respondents it was important to make sure their
activities corresponded with the definition of providers of interactive television listed
above. So they had to be part of one of the following categories:
1. Television producers also producing ITV;
2. Television producers developing programmes and services for ITV only;
3. Interactive media developers for multi channels: Internet, CD-Rom, ITV;
4. Internet developers expanding their activities to ITV;
5. Access providers also involved in developing programmes, services and navigation
systems;
6. Consultant agencies on the field of ITV.
A collection of 79 potential respondents was the result of a visit to the Cable & Satellite
Mediacast conference in London from May 17 till May 19 1999 and the Television Meets
the Web conference in Amsterdam from May 20 till May 22 1999. During these
conferences a short presentation of this research was given to explain the questionnaire
and to invite people to contribute. Small A5-format flyers with a short introduction to the
research and the e-mail address of this research were handed out to those interested in
contributing to the research. Out of the 79 received business cards only 63 were
potential respondents according to the definition of providers of interactive television
programmes, services and navigation systems. The names and e-mail addresses of
another 102 potential respondents were collected by browsing the Internet, using lists of
conference participants and articles, and by asking people working in this business.
The quota sampling technique was used to increase the chance the respondents would be
equally divided between the categories explained above, and approximately twenty-five
companies per category were invited. This contributed to answers reflecting a broad
range of perspectives on interactive television. Other possibilities to coordinate the
composition of the final group of respondents were small, because there is no list of the
complete population of providers enabling random sampling. Therefore, it is important to
state that this non-random method of finding respondents implies that the results from
this research cannot be generalized to the complete population of providers of interactive
television. This research concerns just an exploration of existing ideas.
Because the questions would be quite strategic, it could be difficult to stimulate
respondents to contribute to the questionnaire. Extra attention has been paid to find out
which persons were in charge of the strategy regarding interactive television. Expecting
these persons to be very busy people, it would be difficult getting through to them. In
addition, interactive television is quite a new business and that could cause the
respondents to be careful or reluctant to share information. On the other hand
respondents could also be very eager to participate in research and to acquire new
information.
50
5.2.2 Composition of the questionnaire
It was important to pay close attention to the formulation of the questions and the
communication with the respondents. Useful information was found in literature on
methodology and research (Baarda & de Goede, 1996; Bartelds e.a., 1989; Swanborn,
1987). But also the experiences of several people working in the field were very useful to
decide on the best way to approach potential respondents.
Based on the study of relevant literature, my own conceptualization of interactivity and
interactive television, and the interviews with experts working in the field of interactive
television several questions and statements could be phrased to investigate the different
perspectives on interactive television that exist among providers of interactive television.
Most questions were open questions, but there were also a few questions with closed
answer possibilities to investigate some characteristics of the participating companies.
The choice for open questions was made to collect argumentations instead of a simple
‘yes’ or ‘no’. To be able to analyze the different perspectives on interactive television, the
possibility offered to respondents to write down argumentations was of vital importance
to this research. This resulted in a draft questionnaire with questions concerning:
•
their company and its supply of ITV (questions 1,2,3,4);
•
their definition of interactivity (questions 5,23,24,25,27 );
•
their image of the market for ITV (questions 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,17,28a,28b,28e);
•
their image of the usage context of ITV (questions 16,28d);
•
their image of the future of television (questions 18,26,27,28c,28d,28f,28g);
•
the sources of information for their images of ITV (questions 13,14,15,19,20,21,22).
Based on the answers to these questions an attempt will be made to present the first
contours of a feasible business model of ITV.
The questionnaire opened with a brief introduction to the research and ended with some
questions for the administration, asking for the e-mail address to make sure that every
individual respondent contributed only once. With online surveys duplication of responses
could occur for example when respondents press the ‘send’-button more than once.
In the next phase, attention was paid to the formulation of the questions and the
readability of the questionnaire. A questionnaire has to motivate the respondent to start
filling out the questions. Therefore it is very important to make sure the formulation of
the questions is clear and not to use words the respondent could be unfamiliar with.
Moreover, it was necessary to make the respondent understand why it was so important
to contribute to this research and why precisely he or she was chosen to receive an
invitation to participate in this research. They had to be convinced of the valuable
contribution they could deliver to the general conceptualization of interactive television.
By filling out the questions they would also have the possibility to obtain the results. With
these results they could learn from the definitions of other interactive television providers
worldwide.
To increase their motivation, the introduction to the questionnaire included the statement
that the results of the inquiry would be treated confidentially and processed
anonymously. Next, the questionnaire was discussed with five experts. After this test
some changes were made to increase the readability and the final questionnaire was
composed. The estimated time for full completion of the online questionnaire was 40
minutes, presuming that the majority of the invited respondents would have no problems
with typing their answers into the computer.
51
5.2.3 Presentation and distribution of the questionnaire
There are three ways in which the questionnaire has been distributed:
1. Together with the invitation by e-mail as an attached rtf-file;
2. Via the website as an html-form;
3. In an envelope containing a return envelope.
After collecting the e-mail addresses of the potential respondents a website was
developed with background information concerning the research, links to the
participating educational institutions (Utrecht University, School for the Arts Utrecht and
European Media Masters of Arts Program) and a link to the online questionnaire. The
online questionnaire was designed as an html-form. Check boxes were inserted to type in
the answers to the closed questions and for the open questions scrolling text boxes were
used. To prevent the questionnaire from loosing its formatting when displayed at
different browsers, it was designed in such a way that if wrapping did occur, the
formatting would be only minimally disturbed. To decrease downloading time no large
graphics (gifs) were used. Only small icons in front of every question were added to
increase the convenient arrangement of the questions. A very general font (Arial,
Helvetica) together with a neutral background color (beige) had to increase the
readability of the html-form. Respondents could fill out the form and press the sendbutton at the end of the form to send the data via ftp to a special e-mail address at the
University of Utrecht. After pressing the send-button the respondents were directed to an
html-page with an overview of their answers. They could print this page to keep their
answers to reread them later or just to save them. This could also increase the amount
of reflection achieved by filling out the questions. Three persons tested the navigation
and the readability of the website and the html-form.
On June 6 1999 the invitation e-mail with a link to the website and attached rtf-file
containing the questionnaire was sent to the e-mail addresses of the potential
respondents. Fifteen potential respondents already received paper questionnaires at the
two conferences, but they also received this e-mail for the online questionnaire.
5.3
Data analysis
A questionnaire that returned as an e-mail message was designed so that it returned
with each question listed on one line followed by its response and a corresponding
numerical value. This made it easy to eye the data and it facilitated coding the
questionnaires and entering them into WinMax (a software application to analyze
qualitative data) and the statistical software program SPSS 8.0.
5.4
Publication of research results
This research project on interactive television has provided input for this report, but also
for an article written together with dr. Jan A.M.G. van Dijk to be published in New Media
and Society (Sage Publications).
The results from this research will also be published online at a website specially
designed to outline the most important conclusions. This website will be accessible to
those who contributed to this research and to others who are interested. The full text
version of this report will be available for download from this website as a pdf-file. The
respondents will be informed of the URL from the page with pdf-download via e-mail. To
enable people to react on this research, a guest book-application will be offered to leave
comments on the proceedings of this research or, even better, to start a debate on the
results of this research. To stimulate the debate on the conceptualization of interactive
television, this report has been published in English as well as online. This will increase
the potential public that is able to read and react on the results.
52
6 Sample and Questionnaire
6.1
Questionnaire
One day after sending the invitations already five completed questionnaires had been
returned. Altogether 25 completed questionnaires were received in the first week after
sending the invitation. On June 15 1999 a reminder e-mail was sent. This reminder
resulted in another 16 completed questionnaires the same day and the day after. Until
June 21, 48 completed questionnaires had been returned. A second reminder had been
sent and after that it took about three weeks to receive the 74th questionnaire. July 10,
the inquiry was closed. Probably another week of reminding and sending e-mails could
have resulted in another five questionnaires, but the analysis had to start. All
respondents received an e-mail to thank them for participation immediately after
returning a completed questionnaire.
The output of the questionnaire was a number of 74 European, American and Asian
experts of ITV representing companies engaged with the design and operation of
programmes, services and navigation systems, revealing their images of and plans with
ITV in the summer of 1999.
6.2
Respondents
From the 165 invited companies 74 did fill out the questionnaire (45%) and 89 did not.
There are multiple possible reasons for this non-response. Some companies have replied
on the invitation to inform me that they were too busy to contribute to this research at
that moment. For some companies the e-mail address of a specific person involved in
interactive television could not be obtained. In these cases the invitation e-mail was sent
to the companies’ general e-mail address. They sometimes did reply to these invitations,
but presumably in most cases these e-mails did not come through to the right person. In
some cases telephone contact was used to follow-up the electronic invitation and to give
extra information or argumentation to persuade them to contribute to the inquiry.
The respondents had the possibility to use the document attached to the invitation e-mail
(and the reminder e-mails) or surf to the website and fill out the html-form containing
the questionnaire. The paper version of the questionnaire, handed out to some of the
participants of the Mediacast conference, was the last possibility. Figure 6.1 shows the
distribution of the returned questionnaires by method.
2
ion
ers
v
d
nte
ent
pri ite
um
c
s
o
b
we hed d
ac
t
t
a
26
46
Figure 6.1: Distribution of returned questionnaires by method.
(Total valid=74)
53
Unfortunately mainly European companies responded to the questionnaire. From the 65
American companies invited 15 companies responded (77% non-respons). From the 20
Asian companies invited 3 companies responded (85% non-respons). From the 80
European companies invited 56 companies responded to the questionnaire (30% nonrespons).
3
15
e
rop
Eu
A
US
a
i
s
A
56
Figure 6.2: Origin of respondents.
(Total valid=74)
The questions regarding the typification of the company and the programmes and
services they offer were meant to enable some sort of categorization of the respondents.
Several respondents have used the option ‘other’ in the question ‘Which category typifies
your company?’. Some could agree with the predefined categories, but others used this
category ‘others’ to write down a typification, which they thought was more suitable for
their company. A few examples of these answers are: broadband content publisher,
interactive digital producer, developer of online content, interactive television producer,
and new media interface design.
The diversity of terms the respondents used to describe themselves indicates the
changing and shifting character of the media business. It is very difficult to define a
suitable business model let alone a term to label their activities. In this perspective it is
interesting to find that companies with comparable activities (question 3) sometimes
choose different categories to typify their company (question 1). The only way to make
some sort of categorization is to assume that the given answers do resemble the reality
up to a certain point.
In short, the results from these questions 1 and 3 required quite some analyzing, but in
the end the companies participating in this research could then be distributed along the
six company types defined before starting the inquiry. This typification of companies
appeared to be very suitable to distribute the participating companies. One extra
category had to be added, because hardware providers involved in content production
were not reckoned with.
54
Company type
Television producers also producing ITV;
14
Television producers developing programmes and
services for ITV only;
16
Interactive media developers for multi channels:
Internet, CD-Rom, ITV;
18
Internet developers expanding their activities to ITV;
6
Access providers also involved in developing
programmes, services and navigation systems;
7
Consultant agencies on the field of ITV;
9
Hardware suppliers of ITV also involved in producing
‘content’.
4
Total
74
Table 6.1: Categories of respondents.
In the presentation of the results (below) various quotes are used to illustrate certain
opinions of the respondents. Because the anonymity of the respondents is guaranteed
the categories described above will be used to label the source of the quotes.
Under these categories a clear divide can be made, that could also be observed in the
answers of the company experts. One of the most striking results of this investigation is
that company experts engaging with ITV from the television-producing sector think quite
different about the future of ITV than experts among Internet producers of ITV. The
seven categories listed above could be reduced to two classes to be abbreviated as
‘television producers of ITV’ (n=31) and ‘Internet producers of ITV’ (n=41). The first
class comprises categories 1 and 2 and a part of 6 and 7; the second class is filled with
categories 3 and 4 and a large part of 5. Two consultant agencies could not be classified
and they were discarded in all analyses dealing with comparisons between television and
Internet producers. The category of ’television producers of ITV’ represents companies
developing television programmes and services with interactive features and the
category ‘Internet producers of ITV’ represents companies developing new media with an
interest in integrating television features in their interactive applications.
With these categories it is possible to have a more useful discussion of the results, but
the number of respondents is too small to prove statistical significance of the differences
observed. Also the sample is not representative for the population of providers of
interactive television. Therefore only descriptive statistical methods have been used to
analyze the data.
6.3
Quality of the questionnaire
Judging on the comments the respondents wrote down at the end of the questionnaires,
it was not very problematic to fill out the questions. For some questions there are a few
missing values which means not or wrongly answered questions. Quite often, however,
respondents only checked the boxes ‘agree’, ‘don’t agree’, or ‘no opinion’ and did not
give an argumentation for their opinion. A possible reason for this is that it took about 40
minutes to complete the questionnaire (depending on the amount of argumentation
55
given). For some of the respondents that was no problem at all, they wrote down very
extensive argumentations. Some others mentioned they almost quit filling out the
questionnaire, because it took them so much time. Sometimes they argued the time
pressure they experience in their job caused this.
6.4
Results
According to the answers from the respondents research often results in very few
practical results that could guide them in the development of interesting programmes
and services for interactive television. On the other hand some respondents also argued
that they need research that provides more global trends and developments. Having
prevented too much generalization in writing this report, a certain amount of
simplification of results is inevitable. Hopefully, the somewhat abstract treatment of
results can be helpful for people involved in interactive television to formulate startingpoints for the development of interactive television.
In the next chapters the images of interactive television that resulted from the empirical
survey among providers of ITV will be discussed. These chapters cover successively the
definitions of ITV (chapter 7), the images of the market of ITV (chapter 8), the images of
the usage context of ITV (chapter 9), the images of future television (chapter 10) and
the sources of these corporate images of ITV (chapter 11). Chapter 12 tries to reveal the
first contours of a feasible business model based on these concepts.
56
7 Images of ITV
The starting point for every company attempting to develop ITV is to have in mind a
more or less coherent concept of interactive television. As described in the theoretical
assumption above, such a concept underlies the programmes and services ITV providers
will develop. These definitions can, however, vary a lot among the different ITV
providers. Therefore, it is useful for this research to start with an investigation of the
existing definitions of ITV.
7.1
Definition of interactive television
The responses to the direct question ‘what is interactive in interactive television’ were
remarkable unclear. Many respondents call interactivity an abstract term, though they
use it all of the time. For any definition of it they prefer to talk about applications. Their
images of ITV differ, depending on whether they pay more attention to the technology
that enables ITV or whether they concentrate on the changing TV experience. The
answers can be classified in two categories. The first category departs from the technical
features of ITV. Typical answers are:
“Broadcast TV’s with a return channel (a telephone or cable modem)”
(Hardware supplier of ITV also involved in producing ‘content’)
“You can send data back through a keyboard, remote control, or other device (like
teletext)”
(Access provider also involved in developing programmes, services and navigation systems)
“Interactive television is mixed video, audio, and data being presented to and
manipulated by the viewer on a two way network. The mix of all three media is core to
this. The two way network is core to this.”
(Interactive media developer for multi channels: Internet, CD-Rom, ITV)
The second category of answers concentrates more on the changing TV experience.
Typical answers are:
“The user will be able to participate more actively in programming and e-commerce
services.”
(Television producer also producing ITV)
“Interactivity means you will receive reactions on your personal activity.”
“Adding density to the experience. TV being a layered experience. Those simply wanting
to watch TV can and others can drill down and make the experience deeper.”
(Consultant agency on the field of ITV)
Whether they call it selection, customization or personalization, in both categories of
answers the expression freedom of choice for viewers or consumers predominates. This
freedom is assessed differently, from a concept of total freedom to decide what happens,
to a concept of reacting and choosing from content supplied. Typically, one part of the
respondents keeps using the term viewer while the other part shifts to the term user
talking about ITV. The first part mainly comes from the sector of television production
while the other stems from Internet production.
Next to freedom of choice the respondents also mention two-way communication, the
immediate effect on the viewing experience and the more active viewer as important
elements for a definition of ITV. They differ widely in their interpretation of these
elements, but they all agree on one thing, that the mix of video, data and audio is a
central issue in ITV.
Two-way communication is considered to be crucial when speaking of ‘interactive’
television. The respondents agree that the possibility to give feedback by means of a
57
‘back channel’ is an undisputed element of ITV but the definition of this ‘back channel’
varies. From a broadband cable connection to an analogue telephone line, the technical
capacity of the back channel determines the amount, but also the quality of the feedback
users are able to give. One of the respondents described this as following:
“When, technically speaking, the only possible feedback is a ‘yes or no’ choice of
receiving a free sample of a new shampoo, this is two-way communication in the
narrowest sense. If users, for instance, would have the possibility to upload their own
home video material for participation in tonight’s live ‘home video show’, the
interpretation of two-way communication and feedback is much broader.”
(Television producer developing programmes and services for ITV only)
The idea is that ITV enables users to provide input and receive a reaction on that input.
From the answers, however, it can be concluded that there are different interpretations
of the immediacy of the effect on the users input. Some respondents describe ITV as the
possibility to send an e-mail to the producers of a talk show with your vote for the
central statement of tomorrow’s talk show. In this case there is no real-time reaction on
your input. Would you be able to send that opinion during the talk show and immediately
see your vote added to the total scores, then the reaction on your input would be quite
immediate.
The opinions on the supposed activity of the viewer/user can be classified under the
categories zapping, reacting, acting and interacting or exchanging. Which category the
respondents chose, relates to their interpretation of interactivity. The passive
interpretation of interactivity implies a picture where the viewer sits down to relax and
get himself what he wants and when he wants it. The interactivity consists of selection
and simple choice from a relatively fixed offer like menus. The interactive process is
characterized as a series of requests and answers to those requests. Respondents
describing this kind of interactivity often use the term ‘reacting’. It is quite simple
interactivity and does not require much mental effort. Those who attend an active
interpretation of interactivity expect the user to be more involved in the ITV experience.
Here the consumer is an active user who adds his or her own input to the TV content and
is part of a creative process instead of a series of isolated requests and answers. This
kind of interactivity requires more initiative and mind processing. The difference between
active and passive interactivity is comparable with the difference between interactivity
the user requests for himself (transactional services, join in game shows, betting
etcetera) versus interactivity where the user is prompted to respond or order something
(advertising, response).
58
Taking into account the elements of ITV discussed above, the spectrum of answers to the
question ‘what is interactive in interactive television’ is summarized in the following table.
ACTOR
INDICATION
ACTIVITY
INDICATION
ACTIVITIES
‘Users’
‘Exchanging’,
‘Interacting’
Communicating
‘Acting’
‘Viewers’
INTERNETPRODUCERS
OF ITV (n=41)
TELEVISIONPRODUCERS
OF ITV n=31)
( 6 ) 15%
( 1 ) 3%
Searching and
producing
information
(13 ) 32%
( 6 ) 19%
‘Reacting’
Choosing from
menus and making
transactions
( 21 ) 49%
( 22 ) 71%
‘Zapping’
Choosing
programmes and
channels
( 1 ) 4%
( 2 ) 7%
Table 7.1: Continuum of indications of interactivity in ITV by Internet and TVproducers
When the two highest and two lowest levels are counted together to form a 2 x 2 table, which is reasonable
according to the argument here, the association is significant at the 0.03 level. (χ2:: φ and Cramér’s V are both
0.245). Total valid n = 72.
Although the number of respondents is not very high, it is possible to observe differences
between the two categories of respondents. Almost three quarters (71 percent) of the
television producers of ITV define ITV as ‘choosing from menus and doing transactions’
and 19 percent as ‘searching and producing information’. The definitions of the group of
Internet producers of ITV is more dispersed, 49 percent can be categorized as ‘reacting’,
32 percent as ‘acting’ and 15 percent as ‘interacting’. Of both the television and the
Internet producers of ITV a small amount of respondents consider ITV ‘zapping and
choosing programmes and channels’, respectively 7 and 4 percent.
The images of ITV belonging to the TV producers of ITV differ in several ways from those
of the Internet producers of ITV. Based on the answers, the following two descriptions of
interactive television can be given:
According to the group of television producers of ITV interactive television is what the
word says: television, made interactive. Interactive television should be based on, and
related to the content of the television programme being viewed. In contrast to the group
of Internet producers of ITV the TV producers of ITV don’t mention the 'non-tv' services
(services not connected to the original television programming) very often. ITV is
entertainment rather than work based, multi user rather than single user and very basic
and selective with a small amount of control for the viewer. This means that it enhances
traditional television with added features and increased selectivity without completely
changing the linear character of traditional television and without interfering excessively
with the TV programme too much. Interactivity can be implemented in various ways, but
often the remote control is mentioned to offer the user the possibility to interact with the
television programme that is being viewed. Examples of this description of interactive
television are: reading the synopsis of the soap episode, requesting the local weather on
top of the national forecast, betting on the horse race at 10.00 hr, buying the CD of the
video-clip viewed, etcetera. Typical answers are:
59
“TV programming which allows the viewer to receive additional information while viewing
linear programming.”
“For example- if you were watching a football match you could select the commentary.”
The group of Internet producers of ITV emphasizes the fact that one has to be able to
exercise ‘real’ control over the supplied content and that ITV does not resemble TV very
much anymore. They take ‘personalization’ further than the possibility to make a few
simple choices and transform the viewer into an active user who influences the
production process of TV programmes. There is the possibility of choice and interaction
between you, others and content and not only the choice of programmes and time (like
Video On Demand). In the most interactive form, according to these respondents, the
user is able to communicate with the content provider, the advertisers and other viewers
directly via the TV. This implies the possibility for one-to-one, one-to-many and many-tomany communication and the development of a sense of virtual community and mutual
understanding. They often describe ITV as the ultimate freedom of information exchange
through video and audio.
“Even when I have a trillion of possibilities to choose from it's still just a selection.
Interaction starts when I am able to ADD something meaning to enter a creative process
that will be reflected on/in the medium itself.”
“The viewer steers the production process of the programme.”
“Freedom of active involvement rather than the linear tyranny that exists for TV now.”
“New, additional layers on top or behind the traditional flat TV screen: a deeper,
stronger, kind-of 3D TV world that the user/viewer can enter into, if he/she so wishes.”
“The ability to communicate with the content provider direct via the TV, to communicate
directly with the advertisers via the TV, to communicate directly with other viewers
directly via the TV.”
Some of the television producers of ITV argue that they don’t want the viewer to
interfere with the programming too much, because they are afraid television
programming will degrade to a couple of loosely connected items that don’t make sense.
They want to guarantee the quality of television. In general, this group of ITV producers
wants to keep a certain control, because they consider the value they add as professional
television producers very important and even crucial to reach large amounts of people.
The Internet producers of ITV are often more inspired by the ‘freedom of information and
communication’ values acclaimed on the Internet to develop ITV applications. They feel
less urged to have a high level of control over the supplied content and they more often
measure quality by means of the amount of input and activity they made possible in their
applications. In their opinion, the more an ITV programme or service is opened up to
public, the higher its quality. These different interpretations of ‘quality’ underlie a very
broad and diverse spectrum of applications for ITV.
7.2
Levels of interactivity
Most respondents agree that it is possible to identify levels of interactivity. Again they
illustrate these levels with examples of applications rather than giving criteria for a more
abstract division of levels. As the freedom of choice to personalize one’s view of
information, predominates the answers, the levels of interactivity are often interpreted as
degrees of customization.
60
“Simple browsing for extra text information, or click here to buy now interactivity at one
end of the spectrum, and full-scale gaming, mass audience participation and interactive
narratives at the other.”
Some television and Internet producers of ITV aim to develop programmes and services
that incorporate different levels of interactivity to enable the viewer to choose the
amount of interactivity themselves.
Generally, those respondents who reveal a definition of ITV as zapping or reacting don’t
expect ITV to reach very high levels of interactivity. Some of them, however, do think
ITV has more potential, but they start developing ITV with a low level of interactivity for
technical and marketing reasons. In the near future they expect huge developments in
the technology and the market for ITV and they only wait to develop highly interactive
ITV, because there is no profitable business model at the moment.
Some of the respondents argue that the level of interactivity will be completely
dependent on the technology that is used for ITV.
"Every device has his own level of interactivity (PC, or TV or mobile device)"
"Depends on return-path bandwidth. This will increase in the future."
“Interactivity is set by input device: simple choice and reaction, with the remote control
in the near future, and later (after 2010) with speech commands.”
Other respondents consider viewer demographics and contextual elements as least as
important and they oppose the opinion that the amount of interactivity experienced by
the viewer depends solely on the interactive elements built in by the producers. They
don’t want to focus on technology only and would prefer the development of a
perspective on the possibilities and threats of ITV that includes those demographical and
contextual elements.
7.3
Conclusion
According to the ITV expert respondents interactivity in interactive television means that
the viewer acquires the possibility to have input in the television programmes and
services he or she is offered. The respondents differ, however, in their operationalization
of input. In general the television producers of ITV define ITV as traditional television
with a few enhancements and added features that provide the viewer with a small
amount of control and increased selectivity without completely changing the linear
character of television. The Internet producers of ITV, however, predict the end of
traditional television viewing. They expect that the viewer will be transformed into an
active user with a lot of possibilities to tailor the content to his or her own wishes and,
ultimately, to communicate with other users. How these diverging definitions of ITV
influence the applications the television and the Internet producers of ITV develop and
how they see the future of ITV, will be discussed in the following chapters.
61
8 Images of the market
What images do corporate experts have of their future markets: what are their target
groups and how do they expect the adoption of ITV to take place? This chapter presents
some answers to these questions. Once again the images of both the television and the
Internet producers of ITV are compared.
8.1
Starting year of ITV companies
Although the group of respondents is quite small it is interesting to take a look at the
distribution of the responding companies by the year in which they started with their
interactive television activities. The table below indicates that some of them already
started working on interactive television in 1980 and since 1994 there is an increase in
the amount of companies working on interactive television. The majority of the
responding companies has started developing interactive television since 1997.
Apparently, an increasing amount of companies has the nerve to get into the business of
ITV no matter how difficult it is to define a proper business model to work with.
Year
Number of
respondents
1980
1
1983
1
1987
1
1988
1
1989
2
1990
1
1991
1
1992
3
1993
1
1994
6
1995
6
1996
5
1997
19
1998
14
1999
7
Missing
5
Total:
74
Table 8.1: Start year of ITV activities
62
8.2
Applications in ITV
As the producers of ITV are desperately searching for a successful business model of ITV,
and prefer to talk about concrete applications instead of the concept of interactivity, it
appears to be important to look at the applications they are thinking about. They may be
classified under the following twelve series to be shortly explained below and
summarized in table 8.2. These twelve series can be rubricated in the four types of
activities that resulted from the categorization of definitions of ITV.
TYPE OF ACTIVITY
APPLICATION
Choosing channels
or programmes
•
•
•
Conditional Access Systems
Electronic Programme Guides
Decoder VCR
Choosing from
menus and
transacting
•
•
Video-on-demand
Customization (camera angles, action replay, in
depth applications, story lines)
Complementary channels (for background
information or advertising)
E-commerce (of goods and services)
•
•
Searching and
producing
information
•
•
•
•
Communication
•
Participation in programmes (fixed format)
Reaction / commentary to programmes
Contribution to programmes / channels (free
format)
Production of own programmes / channels
(‘personal TV’)
Communication about / in parallel to programmes
(viewer / user communities)
Table 8.2: The (Inter)activity of Applications in Digital and Interactive
Television
The first series of applications actually are features of digital television, a term to be
distinguished from interactive television as digital television might just be traditional
television with only another kind of transmission and more options in channels and
programmes. Nevertheless, some respondents call these applications interactive,
because the viewer is able to make a better and faster choice between channels and
programmes. Conditional access systems (in set-top boxes or other decoders) enable a
choice between existing or new (extra) supply, most often by paying for it. As a very
important aid the viewer acquires electronic programme guides and other means to
navigate between an explosively increasing supply. Before long viewers will be able to
programme their own personal television night in this way. For this purpose they can also
use decoder VCRs. Actually these decoders are computers with a large hard disk and
software able to record specific programmes and to play them at a freely selected time
and a particular order.
The next series of applications presupposes that the viewer returns a signal, for instance
by placing an order or making a choice within a programme. Here one gets two-way
communication anyway. A well-known case is video-on-demand. A bit more spectacular
are applications enabling the viewer adaptations within a particular supply. Examples are
the choice of camera angles, zooming, replay, different length and depth of item display
(for instance a summary of a sports game in one or ten minutes) and even the choice of
a particular plot or narrative in a film or soap programme. The offer of additional
channels for more information about or around programmes, including advertising
63
programmes, is one of the most frequently mentioned applications with ample
experimentation, even on current TV channels. Increasingly additional digital channels
are offered, for instance filled with repeats, and references to websites for more
information or for replies to advertisements. One expects these channels to become
important supplements for commercials on TV and for the exposition of e-commerce
among a mass audience. E-commerce is considered to be one of the most important
sources of finance for ITV.
With the next range of applications it is presupposed that the signals of viewers also have
a more or less direct effect on the substance of supply. Viewers are able to participate in
quizzes and other games or in questionnaires on TV. These offerings remain largely or
wholly pre-programmed. This is not necessarily the case when viewers are able to react
to or comment on programmes using e-mail or video and audio messages. A question
remains whether these contributions are incorporated in the broadcasting or narrow
casting programme. Therefore the logical sequel in this series is the production of own
programmes, yes even own channels – cf. current audio-visual websites- by users that
may now be justifiably called producers themselves.
In the twelfth and last application to be mentioned here two-way traffic turns into
multilateral traffic. Here a channel is produced, or an existing additional channel is used
to communicate about programmes or to exchange contributions. These practices are on
the rise on the Internet. Similar applications in the context of ITV are virtual communities
of particular television programme fans, first of all soap series. For instance, in the
Netherlands the ‘reality soap’ series Big Brother on television, was accompanied by a
virtual explosion of websites and viewer communities on the Internet. Big Brother was an
experimental programme on Dutch TV (Channel Veronica) at the end of 1999. A group of
young people unknown to each other was invited to stay in a closed house for three
months and to be watched 24 hours a day with cameras. They could act as they wanted,
but they were submitted to a popularity contest as viewers could choose who should
leave the house until one person remained. The programme with audience ratings of
more than 20% was accompanied by countless websites with more information and
opportunities to chat in viewer communities. This formula was sold immediately to other
broadcasters in the world. Other examples are simultaneous discussions on television
and the Internet.
Well then, a striking result of the expert questionnaire was the observation that
respondents of the television production sector usually mention the first series of
applications described above while respondents of Internet production companies prefer
to call the last ones.
8.3
Short term plans for ITV
To have a small overview of the short term plans for ITV (two years), the experts were
asked to indicate whether they are going to focus on ‘interactive services not connected
to television programming’, ‘interactive programming and services based on television
programming’, ‘internet on television’ or a mixture of those options. Table 8.3 presents
the answers in percentages splitted among television and Internet producers of ITV.
64
TV
Internet
13 %
29 %
Interactive services not connected to
television programming
42 %
17 %
Interactive programming and services based
on television programming
7%
5%
19 %
27 %
3%
2%
television programming AND internet on
television
0%
2%
Interactive programming and services based
on television programming AND internet on
television
0%
5%
television programming AND interactive
programming and services based on television
programming AND internet on television
3%
5%
Confidential
13 %
7%
Whatever /we don’t know yet
100 %
100 %
Internet on television
television programming AND interactive
programming and services based on television
programming
Total
Table 8.3: Short term plans for interactive television (two years)
(Total valid n = 72)
The majority of the television producers of ITV (42 percent) and 17 percent of the
Internet producers of ITV explains plans to develop ITV as an extension of current TV
with a number of additional facilities. They will allow the viewers more choices of all kinds
and the suppliers new chances for commercial television, primarily pay TV, direct
marketing and e-commerce. On the other hand 29 percent of the Internet producers
intends to develop interactive services not connected to television programming, for
example banking and information services, compared to 13 percent of the television
producers of ITV. These services, often described as ‘non-TV’ services, have no
connection at all with the traditional television programming and have more resemblance
with existing Internet applications like home banking. Via television they expect to
acquire a much bigger audience for their Internet applications. Twenty seven percent of
the Internet producers of ITV and 19 percent of the television producers of ITV has
planned to search for a balance between both the ‘TV’ and the ‘non-TV’ services for ITV.
Five percent of the Internet producers of ITV and 7 percent of the television producers of
ITV do not search for this mixture, but want to focus on the Internet on television.
Although they were asked for short-term plans, 7 percent of the Internet producers and
13 percent of the television producers of ITV answers to have no clue (yet) and
respectively 5 percent and 3 percent considers this information too confidential to answer
this question.
For the future beyond the next two years, the television producers of ITV who picture
themselves as really innovative hope to see television evolve into the ultimate example
of media convergence and not just ITV included as an afterthought. Despite these future
plans to fully integrate interactive elements in television, they first provide merely simple
65
additional services and features loosely connected to the television programming,
because they don't expect there is a market for more complex applications the first two
years. There could be, for example, websites with extra information about the existing
programming. In general those ITV producers who consciously planned to start with a
few experiments or those who first want to improve their current offer, argue that they
prefer to use the next two years to experience and study the effects on the consumer
market for ITV before taking high risks and investing in applications without a market.
They expect that the business opportunity will follow as soon as the customers like it. By
adding a few extra services they try to give customers an extra incentive and stimulate
the market in this way.
8.4
Other plans of providers for the future
To define a successful business strategy, companies often keep a close eye on their
competitors/colleagues. To investigate the mutual perceptions of each other’s future
plans the ITV experts were asked to describe what activities they think other producers
of ITV will enroll the first two years.
Twelve percent answers that the future ITV plans of others look similar to their owns. On
the other hand 10 percent of the ITV experts answers that they really have no idea. Most
respondents of this last category mention to have no clue about the future of ITV,
anyway. With seven percent giving no comment on this question there is 71 percent of
the respondents that has a negative idea about the way other producers of ITV tackle the
subject. Some main aspects of these ideas are described below.
Those companies that define ITV with a strong link to television fear that other producers
of ITV are too much focused on the Internet.
“Only a handful of companies are really concentrating on interactive TV, everyone else
has only just got into the Internet in a big way. However, I think the situation will change
as the Internet market matures further in the US and interactive TV will be the next
available differentiator for many of the Internet service companies.”
”Too many of them (Microsoft leading the way) are focusing on the Internet to deliver
interactive television. Which, in my view, is a misconception! TV = Entertainment;
Internet = Information (infotainment at best...).”
Almost half of the group of respondents that give their opinion on the plans of other
providers worries in one way or another that ITV companies forget what people really
want in their concepts for ITV. They prefer a user-centric view of developing ITV and
more attention for content instead of technology.
“Everybody seems to be rushing to collect eyeballs. Very few part from the point of view
that you have to give value to an individual consumer.”
“Most create interactivity for the sake of interactivity rather than examine each case and
ask, "Does this really enhance the experience."
”Most anticipate a more active experience than we think the viewer really wants. Most
are driven by the capability of the technology rather then the requirements of the
viewer/user.”
“Technology will be ok, but content fails. The problem is that the technology is there to
be implemented, but there is no clue about the content. Providers know they need
content to attract visitors and they need services to create 'visitor loyalty'. Hopefully high
quality content providers will attach themselves to technological providers.”
66
“A user-centric point of view is critical in all interactive TV developments. Everything will
depend on what is hype versus what is reality.”
Another point of comment concerns the perceived lacking innovative spirit to develop
really new television. Internet producers of ITV often suspect the television producers of
ITV to practice old style TV/broadcasting thinking that, they argue, is an obstacle
towards innovation and for that reason they expect multiple failures. Some respondents
point out, however, that they have a general fear that a lot of companies (not only
television companies) lack creativity and innovation and will just transplant traditional
techniques into the new era.
“All the obvious things are being considered but the underlying nature of interactivity is
not being explored to any great degree.”
Another point of criticism from the respondents considers the commercial interest behind
the development of a lot of the current ITV programmes and services.
Particularly, the public ITV providers think of commercial providers as some kind of gold
diggers who only want to make big profits by investing in home-banking, home shopping
and whatever type of ITV associated to E-commerce. Next to the critical approach
towards the commercial interest there are also respondents who admit that they start
with e-commerce because they expect this will be the only type of ITV applications with
the prospect of a reasonable business model at short date.
8.5
Future market for ITV
To investigate the expectations of the future market of ITV the following statement was
presented to the respondents:
‘Interactive online services will enjoy mass market use via interactive
television.’
The answers to this statement are summarized in figure 8.1 below.
no
12
20
32
67
yes
n
inio
op
no
52
78
V
f IT
s o ITV
r
e
f
uc rs o
e
rod
al
tot net p oduc
r
r
p
e
int ision
ev
l
e
t
13
10
16
Figure 8.1: Answers to the statement ‘Interactive online services will enjoy
mass market use via interactive television’. (in percentages)
(Total valid n=72)
Sixty-seven percent of all respondents agrees with the statement. Twenty percent does
not agree and 13 percent has no opinion. Both the television producers and the Internet
producers of ITV are very optimistic about the future mass character of the ITV market.
67
From the group of Internet producers 78 percent agrees with television’s potential to give
online interactive services a mass market against 52 percent of the group of television
producers. Those who don't agree with this opinion either believe online services are for
Internet on computers and will not work on the television in the living room or they have
no big expectations of the market potential for ITV at all.
Most respondents who believe in the mass market of online interactive services argue
that it is too powerful of a force not to happen that way. A great number of them even
claim that the mass market of interactive services is only reachable via television. Those
who have a more precautious believe in the mass market adoption, point out that it is
very important to keep the interactive services ‘quick and simple’ to fit easily in the
existing viewing behaviour and that it depends on pricing and sufficient choice whether
the mass market will adopt ITV. One of the respondents adds the comment that one
should not speak of a mass market, but of many microcosmic markets, because of the
one-to-one personal approach of ITV. They recognize that at the moment the
development of ITV is not being driven by consumer demand, but they don’t think this is
a problem, because the corporations driving ITV can simply create this demand with a lot
of marketing.
8.6
Future ITV users
Both groups of respondents are very optimistic about the future mass character of the
ITV market. Only the kind of consumers adopting the medium first is viewed differently.
The responses on this question are divided into four categories presented in the figure
ed
below.
enc st
i
r
e
ir
exp ers f
/
s
u
th
you puter
47
t
com
firs
e
l
eop
he
C-p om t
P
r
n
f
no
24
ht
rig
y
od
ryb
e
v
ing
e
inn
22
g
e
b
yet
w
kno
n't
o
d
7
we
Figure 8.2: Answers to the question ‘Which people will use ITV most?’ (in
percentages)
(Total valid n=72)
Summarizing figure 8.2, about one half of the respondents expects the average television
viewer in families will adopt ITV right from the start. The other half thinks individual
young viewers and experienced computer users will come first. The last ones presume
that the introduction of ITV is a learning process affecting some before others.
Below the categories of answers are elaborated in further detail.
68
Youth and experienced computer users first, because they are used to
interactivity. In a short period of time everybody will use ITV.
The young generations (born after 1970) have grown up with television as well as the
computer. They spend a lot of time watching TV and playing with game-consoles
connected to the television. They are not scared of technology and interactivity. This
certainly goes for the experienced computer users and heavy Internet users. Together
with the early adopters who like gadgets, the youth and PC-savvy people will adopt ITV
first. Later on the general public will be attracted to ITV. Some of the respondents
mention the importance of consumers already used to Pay-TV and additional text
services. They are already looking for variety and offerings to meet their different needs.
Non PC-people first
Other respondents express a completely different view on the future users of ITV. They
expect that ITV will be adopted first by non-technically oriented people who like watching
TV, but who are unfriendly with computers. They think it is easier for these people to
assimilate new interactive features when brought via television than via the computer,
because they can understand a remote control but not a keyboard and a mouse. For this
group of non PC-people ITV is first and foremost interesting because they are interested
in extra services or internet-like services, but considered them too expensive as they had
to buy computer equipment. The appeal to this group of consumers ITV must not be too
complicated. For this reason, respondents who think non PC-people will adopt ITV first,
argue that it will not attract PC-people at all, because there is no added value for them
compared to the computer and the Internet.
Everybody right from the beginning
If it is interesting and easy-to-use, some respondents think there will be no difference.
Everybody will use it right from the beginning, but for different reasons and at a different
time of the day. The interesting thing about ITV is that unlike the Internet, it will – owing
to its simplicity - attract everybody, also the non PC-users. There will be no difference
from today’s television viewers.
In the following quote the attractivity of ITV to both PC-people and non PC-people is
explained:
”I think ITV will appeal to 2 divergent audiences: ‘Techies or information junkies, who
want full access to information on a variety of emerging platforms. I also think that
interactive television will appeal to non-technically oriented viewers, who want to
experience the full breadth of information available on both the internet and on television
without having to access sophisticated equipment or platforms.”
An interesting point of discussion seems to be the question whether e-commerce has the
power to be the driving force of the adoption of ITV. Some of the respondents expect
that a lot of business people without time to do shopping will like ITV because of the
aspect of convenience. For them e-commerce will be a very important reason to start
using ITV. Other ITV experts argue that ITV will rather appeal to people who have plenty
of time, like students, sick and unemployed and housewives. They stay at home most of
the time and have the opportunity to discover the possibilities of ITV as a distractive
pastime. On the other hand, some ITV experts have a completely opposite view about ecommerce. They think that if most of the programming is to be supported by ecommerce adoption rates will slow, because people don’t feel comfortable to buy online.
The different ideas about the category of people adopting ITV first can be extended with
the answers to the following statement presented to the ITV experts:
‘People will have to get used to interactive applications on television and
therefore interactive television is not a revolution, but an evolution of
television.’
Most agree that interactivity has to be learned and that people will have to get used to
interactive applications on television. Seventy-four percent of the respondents agree and
69
22 percent does not agree with the presented statement for reasons described below.
Four percent has no opinion. Compared to the Internet group of ITV producers from
which 69 percent agrees with the statement, the television producers of ITV have a more
reserved attitude towards consumers’ readiness for interactivity, 81 percent agrees that
consumers need time to get used to ITV.
22
no
13
29
74
69
yes
81
n
inio
op
no
ITV
of TV
s
r
fI
ce
du ers o
l
o
r
a
t
to net p oduc
pr
er
int ision
ev
tel
4
2
6
Figure 8.3: Answers to the statement ‘People will have to get used to
interactive applications on television and therefore interactive television is not
a evolution, but an evolution of television.’ (in percentages)
(Total valid n=72)
According to the respondents who agree with the statement that ITV will be an evolution
instead of a revolution, at the moment most consumers don’t feel the need to use
interactive enhancements of traditional television. New interactive content, however, will
slowly create a certain consciousness of the opportunities and possibilities of ITV, which
will surprise and attract these people and get them involved with ITV. In the end
consumers will modify their behaviour. They don’t want to miss ITV anymore and they
will be ready for content with a higher level of interactivity.
“Don’t force the consumer, let behaviour modify slowly and they will ask for more if it
adds value.”
(Hardware supplier of ITV also involved in producing ‘content’)
Opposite to the group of respondents who think ITV will be an evolution of television,
there is 22 percent of the respondents who expect a fast and revolutionary change of
traditional television. These ITV experts have a quite negative vision of the current
television offer. In their perspective most television viewers are really waiting for
interactivity to be added to the passive and boring television programmes. Especially
young adults and active PC users will be happy with the new opportunities and they will
use new interactive services instantly. These respondents recognize that there are
groups of people who will not feel such a strong need for interactivity, like elderly people,
but they are sure these people will also discover useful features of ITV. According to
these respondents ITV will offer different opportunities for different people at different
levels.
Some of those respondents who do not agree with the statement that consumers have to
get used to ITV, argue that ITV is neither an evolution nor a revolution, because most
television viewers don’t want to be interactive at all. Therefore they think it will be
impossible or at least very difficult to create a need for interactivity by offering them
stimulating interactive television programmes and services. These ITV experts target at
70
very basic and simple interactivity seamlessly integrated into the traditional television
programmes and they don’t expect ITV to be much more than that.
Some of the respondents argue that the difference between an evolutionary or
revolutionary development of ITV will not be decided by the readiness of the user, but by
the readiness of technology. For a period of five years they expect that technology will
not develop fast enough to enable the production and distribution of interactive
programmes and services with real added value and potential to trigger the attention of
the mass public of television viewers.
8.7
Target group of users
Some contours of the image of the future users of ITV were described above. To
investigate for which people the ITV experts actually develop their ITV content they were
asked to describe their target group of consumers. Perhaps it is no surprise that both
groups have their own current users in mind trying to project the perspectives of their
medium into the future. Still, these respondents are really very straightforward in
extending current usage to future applications of ITV they have in mind. Television
producers have their present viewers in mind expecting they will be attracted by extra
technical facilities. They are defining ITV as an extension of current TV with a number of
additional facilities. On the other hand Internet producers think of extending (the
preferences of) their present users into a larger domain: the mass market with more
audiovisual programming and e-commerce. They are thinking that the many innovative
applications of their network of networks will directly appear on TV and acquire a much
bigger audience. According to their view these applications would make television
viewers much more (inter)active and transform them into users and producers of audiovisual programmes or into more active participants in electronic commerce by making
continuous price comparisons and by offering products themselves.
Some respondents mention that they are just starting up their ITV activities and still
have to determine their target groups. Most of them hope to find some answers in the
trials prior to launch.
Typically most ITV experts aim at the mass market and pronounce their expectations
that ITV will become big business. Other respondents answer that they target at specific
interest groups, like youth and young adults, instead of the mass public. In general these
were the same respondents as those who argue that PC-savvy and young people will first
use ITV. From both groups, respondents think that general entertainment will attract
mainly women, and sports mainly men.
8.8
Couch potato or not
To investigate the presumed passivity or activity of the television user the respondents
were asked to give their opinion about the following statement:
'The television user is a passive consumer: a so-called 'couch-potato.'
Sixty percent of the respondents does not agree with this statement. Thirty-six percent,
however, does agree with the couch potato image of the television viewer. Four percent
of the respondents says they have no opinion about this statement. This time, the
television and the Internet producers of ITV share the same opinion. There are hardly
any differences in the answers of both groups.
71
60
61
58
no
36
34
39
yes
n
inio
op
no
V
f IT
s o ITV
r
e
f
uc rs o
e
rod
al
tot net p oduc
r
r
p
e
int ision
ev
tel
4
5
3
Figure 8.4: Answers to the statement 'The television user is a passive
consumer: a so-called 'couch-potato.' (in percentages)
(Total valid n=72)
Whether it concerns lazy people who 'live' on the couch or people who occasionally lean
back to relax and watch television, whether it is to blame to the passive offer of
television programmes or to the television viewer himself; the ITV experts have different
opinions about couch potatoes. Those respondents, who agree with the statement that
television users are couch potatoes, wrote down different arguments for their answers.
Some mention that television viewers don't want to be active at all. Explained in the
positive way, this means that the consumer is not 'passive' but 'tired' of all the choices
he or she has to make in daily life and therefore simply wants to relax when watching
television. The ITV experts who gave this argument do not want to disturb this peaceful
couch potato life and for this target group they develop ITV programmes and services
with simple enhancements of traditional television and not too many choices. Other
respondents have a more negative image of the television public. They think couch
potatoes are people with a passive attitude in general, not only concerning watching
television, and therefore they consider it impossible or very difficult to make them use
some sort of extra interactive features. However, these ITV experts also notice that the
couch potato image does not (or not as much) apply to younger people, because they
are growing up with interactive systems. For this reason these ITV producers do not
develop ITV programmes and services for couch potatoes, but for a more active audience
like children and young adults.
Some respondents, who answer 'yes', think television viewers are couch potatoes in
general, but not always and entirely. From their perspective most of the time people
want to be passive viewers, but sometimes and some people want more. The viewer is
involved in the experience of television viewing at varying levels, depending on his mood
and needs. According to the ITV experts, television needs to be redefined to meet this
need. People mainly watch television to relax, but this does not mean no simple
interactivity will be successful and will contribute to this relaxation. Most of them,
however, warn that television viewing must not be spoilt with interactivity.
Those respondents who answer 'no, television users are not couch potatoes' either think
typical television users are already interactive, because they do a lot of channel surfing
(zapping) and a lot of teletext reading, or they think television viewers actually don't
want to be couch potatoes, but they are only so because they are bored by current
television. In this last opinion the consumer wants to interact, but needs the right
content to do so. Especially the Internet producers of ITV state that the existing
72
television model with couch potato programming has encouraged them to become couch
potatoes. These ITV experts point to the Internet model to illustrate that consumers
could become more active.
8.9
Adoption of ITV
The respondents are quite harmonious in their opinion that the mass market can be
achieved in a relatively short time among the average population. Most respondents
expect ITV is really going to run in a period of 1-3 years and will acquire mass character
within five years. It is important to note that these estimations of the adoption period of
ITV depend very much on the definition of interactive television the respondents hold. If
they define ITV as the possibility to choose from menus they will possibly expect ITV to
be successful sooner than if they have more complex ideas of interactive programmes
and services in mind. The respondents are not so harmonious, however, about the
question where ITV will be successful first, in Europe, in the USA, in Asia or in Africa.
Because most respondents come from the USA or Europe they often only talk about the
USA or Europe and don't mention anything about Asia or Africa. They don't expect much
of ITV in Africa, because there is still so little infrastructure. Figure 8.5 presents the
places where the different experts think ITV will be adopted first. Because the number of
respondents is not very high this figure is more illustrative than representative.
16
e
p
uro
E
48
20
6
1
27
27
A
US
irst t
Af
s
US e fir each
p
o
lr
r
Eu loba
g
t
w
s
fa
kno
n't
do
47
0
a
Asi
0
0
33
67
Figure 8.5: Answers to the question ‘When and where do you think ITV will be
adopted first?’ (in percentages)
(Total valid n=74, Europe n=56, USA n=15, Asia n=3)
The next two quotes reflect completely different perspectives on the future of ITV.
USA first, Europe later
“I am not as familiar with European markets, but based on the Internet model where
European nations have lagged far behind Americans access (due to older telecomm
systems), it may be 2006? before full broadband hits Europe.”
(American respondent)
Europe first, USA later
Europe tends to be a little in front of the development regarding set top boxes.
In the US, so much cable network needs to be upgraded and the cable industry is very
73
fragmented. Therefore digital services will start more slowly.
(European respondent)
Roughly speaking, the respondents predict that ITV will break through in the USA and
West Europe first and later on in Asia, East Europe and Africa.
8.10 Price
The respondents have different opinions on the amount of money they think consumers
will be willing to pay to access interactive television. The answers can be divided in four
categories which will presented in
ts
cos
o
r
ze
ts
to
cos
w
C
lo
41
/P
TV
o
et
abl
r
a
p
com
27
t
a lo
s
nd
it
e
dep
4
27
Figure 8.6: Answers to the question 'How much do you think consumers will be
willing to pay for ITV?’ (in percentages)
(Total valid n=74)
Forty-one percent of the respondents thinks the consumer will only have to make low to
zero costs for ITV. They often mention the free set top-box supply and the free e-mail
strategy used today to explain this opinion. They anticipate most of the costs of ITV will
not be paid directly by subscribers, instead will be consumed through ITV advertising
opportunities and e-commerce. The increasing competition on the ITV market will also
cause a drop down in ITV prices. The Internet providers of ITV often mention the parallel
with the free Internet model to explain why they think the costs for the consumer will be
low to zero. From the group of television providers of ITV, especially the public
broadcasters think it is not an issue for a provider of public services to charge money for
services. Some of the public broadcasters, however, do see some possibilities to charge
small fees for services and games to increase their financial power to keep up with the
competition of the commercial ITV providers.
Other respondents explain that at the moment the information about digital TV is very
confusing as far as consumers are concerned. Only when consumers perceive added
value from ITV they will be willing to pay for services and new equipment. According to
these experts digital and interactive TV certainly has a lot of promising opportunities, but
up to now analogue technology seems to be doing a good job so consumers will see little
reason to change their box or pay for services.
Twenty seven percent of the respondents expect that the consumers will not be willing to
pay much more than the current TV and PC prices. Some of them think the mainstream
will not join in until the cost amounts to a zero increase against what it costs to maintain
a television and a PC today. Others think it has to be even less, it has to be comparable
to the current television costs like cable rates and the fees for Pay-TV.
"Asking the consumer to pay for interactivity will only work with a few early adopters, but
the rest of the population will only be persuaded by good content and exciting
74
experiences. The true enhanced value of interactive services has to be demonstrated
first, but I do not believe they will pay more than about 20% more than they do for
current analogue services."
Another twenty seven percent of the respondents has no clear idea about the prices they
can charge for their ITV offer. They are still making up their mind and investigating the
different conditions that influence the prices they will charge for their services. They
mention the influence of the type of programming, the type of audience, the habit for
Pay-TV in the country, but also whether their services will be supported by advertising or
not. One of these respondents adds the following comment to the subject of the price of
ITV services:
"It depends on the standard of living in specific countries, whether ITV services will be
adopted or not. Although people do consider television one of the first necessities of life,
and even the poorest households have quite high television costs in relation to their
budget, in some countries people first have to fulfill the first necessities of life, before
they can even think of spending money for extra interactive services. Therefore, looking
at the current economic situation of countries in Africa, there will be no market for ITV
for at least ten years from now."
Four percent of the questioned ITV experts expects the consumer to be willing to pay a
really large amount of money for quality ITV services and they will not bother when this
is more than the current TV and PC costs, because the consumers are sick of the boring
offer of television programmes of today and really dying for new interesting services.
The ideas about the method of payment strongly differ among the respondents. Some
think a fixed fee will be best. Others think consumers will prefer to pay small amounts of
money for their actual use of services like banking, weather, home shopping and video
on demand.
8.11 Investing in ITV
All but two respondents agree on the importance of investing in interactive television.
These two companies did not fill in this question. The 72 companies interested in
investing in interactive television mostly answer only 'yes', but some of them give an
argumentation.
Most respondents think it is unavoidable to invest in interactive television, but they do for
different reasons. Some feel kind of 'forced' to invest to keep up with the huge
competition. They are afraid to miss the boat if they don't react quickly. Others see a
future with huge revenue potential and numerous possibilities to extent services and
reach out to the mass public.
"It will take one third of the advertising dollar in the next 10 years. It will equally take
one third of the media-usage time of the consumer."
(Internet developer expanding their activities to ITV)
"The mass market is moving towards interactive television and it creates endless
possibilities for direct communication with consumers, but also to get a clearer picture of
their wishes."
(Internet developer expanding their activities to ITV)
"It is a huge potential market since almost every home has at least one television set,
mass market lies within reach."
"It is unavoidable and very challenging. Now that people are becoming more and more
interactive it is the next logical step in the media evolution to invest in."
75
Some indicate that they chose this new branch on purpose, because they are quite sure
investing in interactive television will be profitable. This will probably be true for the
fifteen respondents who describe interactive television as their core business. Ten
percent chooses to do only a few modest pilots and experiments and not to spend huge
amounts of money.
Some respondents warn for the rising empire of Bill Gates and they encourage the TV
industry to grab their change to develop ITV or Microsoft will take the market with
WebTV within five to ten years. From the broadcasters' side comes a critical note on the
return of investment.
"It still remains to be seen whether interactivity will contribute to the profits. Adding
interactivity to television programming only cost money. This will be at the expense of
the 'normal' budget for production."
Some companies from outside the traditional television industry express their disbelief
that television producers and broadcasters are willing and able to proceed to action very
soon and they think innovation will have to be stimulated from outside the traditional
television branch.
Although the respondents agree about the importance to invest in interactive television
none of them has given an indication of the term in which any return on investment is
expected.
8.12 Driving force
The question of what will be the driving force to bring ITV in the home causes many ITV
providers sleepless nights. Most of the respondents argue that the most important
problem they encounter is to understand the business model of the technology. When
there is enough bandwidth and enough equipment to receive quality ITV services there
will be a market. Which kind of infrastructure and what kind of hardware will drive the
developments still is the question. They find it difficult to invest in ITV while there is no
real standard in hardware and infrastructure, but they expect that the huge competition
between the telecom companies and the cable and satellite providers will accelerate the
development of ITV.
"A lot of issues are dependant on the major network operators- cable companies,
telephone companies- who need to add broadband access technology to their networks
and put in place the complex systems that are needed for ITV to 'truly' begin its
revolution."
"Broadband access to the homes will enable interactivity which will in turn drive original
content development."
"Regular pay TV will drive the penetration of set top boxes in the home. If these boxes
can be interactive, then interactive TV will take off."
Although most of the respondents stress the importance of the development of a
standard technology for ITV they differ in their opinion about the readiness of the
consumer. Some of them expect no problems to attract consumers once technology is in
place and the hardware costs have decreased. According to them consumers are dying to
rush into ITV because the Internet has already prepared the consumer for ITV and
consumers have an increasing desire to interact with appliances and receive services for
their own convenience. Other respondents, however, confirm that it is important to look
at technological issues otherwise ITV will have no chance at all, but add to this that it is
as important to take a close look at the characteristics and the needs of the consumer
and the development of interesting content. These experts stress the importance of a
76
step-by-step introduction of extra elements to the traditional television programming,
because the consumer needs time to get used to it. According to them content will be the
most powerful driving force, but only when it is easy to access, easy to use and has a
clear benefit and added value the consumer will use ITV services and programmes.
"Availability of content: The best parallel is with the advent of video recorders: they took
off only when the corner video store opened."
"However, what will make the difference and encourage a culture change is a
combination of applications, such as local government services, home banking,
teleworking etcetera. It is to balance the user between a traditional usage of TV and of
an interactive usage."
8.13 Conclusion
What images do corporate experts have of their future markets: what are their target
groups? Typically, once again, Internet producers think of extending (the preferences of)
their present users into a larger domain: the mass market with more audiovisual
programming and e-commerce. Television producers have their present viewers in mind
expecting they will be attracted by extra technical facilities. Both clusters are very
optimistic about the mass of future markets in ITV. They expect them to be mass
markets for the average part of the population in a relatively short term. Only, the kind
of users adopting the medium first is viewed differently. About half of the respondents
think young people and experienced PC users will come first. The ‘couch potato’ image or
stereotype of the present television viewer is blamed to the current offer of ‘passive’
television. With the advent of ITV this will turn into a more active attitude. Most agree,
however, that interactivity has to be learned and in the end, ITV will be something for
everybody depending on the ease of use, the simplicity and the added value.
77
9 Images of the usage context
It is familiar that new media designers often neglect user contexts (see Van Dijk,
1999:74-77). They put insufficient attention to the 'domestication' (Silverstone &
Hadden, 1996) of their new medium in the home and other user contexts. In the
contextual model of interactivity advocated in this thesis the channel (transmission) is
less important than the context of the interaction concerned. The context of using ITV is
particularly important for an estimation of the chances of ITV in the future. Therefore the
ITV producers were asked for their image of this context.
9.1
Social and environmental context
The term context acquires at least two meanings here: the spatial context of use of ITV
and the social context of companionship. Concerning the home as the user context a
majority (64 percent) thinks that ITV will be used or viewed in the living room. A quarter
of the respondents expects a multifunctional use in all rooms of the home. A minority (11
percent) anticipates a shift to the study or other individual rooms. The social character of
using or viewing reveals a bigger spread of answers. Twenty percent thinks ITV will be
viewed or used alone, 42 percent in company and 38 percent in both social contexts.
Combining the answers to the two questions concerned and splitting them among
television and Internet producers of ITV one obtains the distribution in Table 9.1.
The two axes of the table represent the environmental context and the social context.
The spread of answers does not cover all the potential combinations of these axes.
78
USAGE
ALONE
20% (14)
PLACE
4%
18%
STUDY OR
OTHER
INDIVIDUAL
PLACE
11% (8)
TV
TOGETHER
42% (27)
Internet
TOTAL: 11% (8)
7%
48%
5%
TOTAL: 0%
22%
36%
LIVING
ROOM
4%
3%
64% (41)
15%
TV
Internet
TOTAL: 6% (4)
ALL ROOMS
25% (13)
TV
BOTH
38% (25)
TV
10%
28%
Internet
TOTAL: 42% (27)
Internet
TOTAL: 3% (2)
TOTAL: 0%
TV
TOTAL: 16% (10)
TV
TOTAL: 0%
Internet
Internet
TOTAL: 22% (15)
Table 9.1: Expected place and kind of social use of ITV according to TV and
Internet producers of ITV (N=72)
Marginal cells contain the percentages of all answers (two times 100 per cent) and interior cells the distribution
of the two types of producers adding to 100 percent each.
As there are too much empty cells in this cross-tabulation statistics of association could not be made.
79
From those respondents who think ITV will be used in the living room (mainly television
producers of ITV) 42 percent expects this to be together with others. They argue that
television viewing is and will remain solely a family activity. Sixteen percent, however,
thinks ITV will be used in the living room alone as well as together with others, because
just like television, there will be a variety of options depending on the programming.
Some shows will be better suited for family viewing, while other programming is more
personalized.
The respondents who expect ITV to be an individual activity differ in their opinion
whether that will be in the study, in the living room or in all rooms, but they all think that
the enormous possibilities to personalize television viewing to the consumer's own
interest will be the key feature of ITV. According to them this implies the end of family
viewing. This goes especially for the Internet producers of ITV, 18 percent of them,
expects ITV to be used individually and in the study.
A respectable number of respondents, however, anticipates on a future in which ITV will
be used in all rooms, both together with others and alone. Twenty eight percent of the
Internet group, and 15 percent of the television group of ITV producers explains their
ideas of an 'on demand society' with all kinds of devices and multifunctional displays all
over the place that enable the consumer to choose what, where and when he pleases.
The applications make the difference whether people choose for the study, the kitchen,
the living room or any other room and whether they want to have company or not.
"It will depend on times of the day, objectives of each user/viewer at each time (i.e. get
better entertained or better informed or buy something quicker) and it can certainly be a
shared experience as well (for example multi-users games), location is everywhere (we
are in a 'mobile' society) and time is every time (we are in an increasingly 'on demand'
society as well)."
In relation to the distinction between using ITV alone or with others some respondents
mention the difference between being physically alone, but at the same time virtually
with others. They picture a future in which ITV programmes and services enable viewers
to communicate with each other in community-like environments. Physically the viewer is
alone, but virtually he or she can be engaged in sophisticated social networks. Perhaps in
the end people who are connected in the virtual world might get connected in the real
world too.
"In the first instance interactive television will be one-to-one. The one who succeeds to
develop new services and content that connects consumers socially (building
communities) will be the winner of the game."
9.2
Fulfilling the same needs
The question of the context of ITV (social and environmental) relates to the question how
much the PC and the TV are or are not different from each other. The questioned ITV
experts were proposed with the following statement:
'Television is a medium that is capable of fulfilling the needs of the user for
communication, information, amusement and transaction to the same extent as
the computer.'
The spread of answers is presented in percentages in the figure below.
80
61
61
61
no
37
37
36
yes
n
inio
op
no
V
f IT
s o ITV
r
e
f
uc rs o
e
rod
al
tot net p oduc
r
r
p
e
int ision
ev
tel
2
2
3
Figure 9.1: Answers to the statement 'Television is a medium that is capable of
fulfilling the needs of the user for communication, information, amusement and
transaction to the same extent as the computer.' (in percentages)
(Total valid n=72)
Regarding this statement there is no difference between the television group of ITV
producers and the Internet group of ITV producers. Two percent of all respondents does
not have an opinion.
Thirty-seven percent agrees with the statement that the television is capable of fulfilling
the needs for communication, information, amusement and transaction to the same
extent as the computer. They argue that because of technological developments the
television will resemble a PC more and more. Add broadband developments and you can
do the same with a TV as a PC, they say. Because of this technological convergence it
will only depend on the mood and situation of the consumer where he or she will sit,
behind the PC or in front of the TV. Most of the respondents who agree with the
statement above also argue that the environmental context of ITV will be all rooms and
the social context will be both alone and together with others.
The majority (61 percent) of the respondents, however, does not expect that the PC and
the TV will be able to suffice the same needs. Some of them do not expect that the TV
and the PC will technologically converge that much. In their opinion television will always
be optimized for watching video and the PC for reading electronic text. Others do think
that future technology will become the same, but they are sure the uses will remain
different. They emphasize the fact that television is more a social medium and will
stimulate more social interactivity whereas the PC enables more interaction on an
individual level. Some of the respondents even conclude that TV will only offer passive
interactivity and active interactivity will remain the domain of the PC. The PC will be for
information and transaction and the TV for entertainment. In relation to the question of
the contexts of ITV these respondents mainly answer that ITV will be for the living room
when you are together with others. To illustrate this, one respondent adds the following
comment:
"TV is the platform, which the consumer sits on a couch (not chair) 10 feet away from
(not 2 feet) and is able to choose content, commerce and other personalized choices
using an easy interface with the aid of a keyboard where necessary."
81
9.3
Conclusion
Regarding the spatial context of use of ITV it can be concluded that the living room is
expected to remain the place to be for television viewing/using. In the social context of
companionship, ITV is described as television viewing in company, but increasingly also
as an individual activity. It will depend on the applications that will be developed, but
also on the technology, to what extent traditional television activities (like watching
entertainment) will merge with traditional computer activities (like searching for
information or for example home banking).
82
10 Images of future television
A conspicuous observation is that next to the vaguely defined image of interactivity, the
responding producers of ITV have no clear image of the future of television as such
either. One does not know which programmes and kinds of applications will prevail and
the image of future television is mainly marked by the future of the technology used. In
the next chapter the main lines are sketched for this image of future television.
10.1 Convergence of television and the Internet
The ITV producers were asked whether the television and computer (network) platforms
will converge completely, or whether they will (partly) remain to be separate? Almost
two-third of the respondents (63 percent) finds the Internet and television will converge,
while one-third expects them to remain distinct channels, see figure 10.1.
63
37
5
0
4
4
Internet and TV will
remain different
Internet and TV
will merge
Figure 10.1: Relation between developments on the Internet and ITV (in
percentages)
(Total valid n=74)
The respondents were also asked what they think the relation is between developments
on the Internet and the development of ITV. One group of respondents thinks the
Internet is the example to ITV, but the content is really different. In this opinion Internet
technology will underlie interactive TV, but Internet content will not work on TV. Although
they do admit that the advantage of the Internet is that people have already got used to
interactivity, they expect that Internet will become the portal to all kinds of information,
whereas ITV will provide access to targeted and more edited information related to TV
programming.
"Internet is a rough flee market. ITV is the high bandwidth, carefully build rich walled
garden."
"Internet technology will underlie interactive TV. Internet content will be used initially,
until people realize it does not work on TV."
Other responding producers of ITV not only describe the Internet as an example for ITV,
but they also think the Internet and television will merge into one.
"Ultimate freedom on the Internet will ideally also be applied to ITV (be your own
broadcaster)."
83
"They will merge completely, so that you are connected to both at the same time, on the
same device from the same interface."
"IP-based technology (internet-technology) will drive interactivity and will underlie all
kinds of interactive services."
"They go hand in hand. In a technological way but also in a conceptual. It is not about
television or the computer. It is about the development of interactivity and interactive
concepts."
10.2 Divergence and convergence of content and technology
Judging on the answers of section 6.1 the question whether television and the Internet
will converge or diverge contains aspects of technology as well as content. The future of
television in general can also be interpreted in terms of a divergence or a convergence of
technology and a divergence or a convergence of content. Combining the future of
content with the future of technology results in different predictions of the future of
television. Based on a general interpretation of the anwers from this expert survey, table
10.1 presents four images of future television.
divergence of content
convergence of content
divergence of
technology
PC and TV will remain
completely different devices
with their own content and
usage context
All kinds of different devices
(palmtop, e-book etc.) with
specific applications for
different tasks
convergence of
technology
PC with advanced video
possibilities and TV with hard
disk, but with different content
and usage
All the functionality you may
ever need integrated in one
universal device
Table 10.1: Divergence and convergence of content and technology
10.3 The platform of introduction
Regarding the technological platform of ITV a majority of television producers of ITV
think it will concern set-top boxes on top of or inside television sets. They often argue
that decoders are the most economic viable technology at the moment, because most
consumers already have one. But at the same time they know the quick obsolesce of
these boxes is a difficulty and the consumer will call for a world standard. Internet
producers of ITV are less oriented to the television device. They think television will
increasingly be received on a PC or by multifunctional home connections and screens.
The following quote illustrates this opinion.
"TV sets will become more computer like. You'll see set top boxes as well as TV sets with
built in hard drives with a variety of operating systems, variety of processors, running
dedicated applications allowing users access to a variety of services such as web surfing,
banking, shopping. There will exist a variety of 'viewing or interacting' devices and they
will vary according to target markets. Teens may want to interact with their PC, while
Mom wants a terminal in the kitchen, or dad from the TV. Viewing device choice will
depend on lifestyle…"
84
Splitted for the television and the Internet producers of ITV the answers are presented in
percentages in table 10.2 below.
PLATFORM OF ITV
INTRODUCTION
TV-PRODUCERS
OF ITV (n=31)
INTERNET-PRODUCERS
OF ITV (n=41)
Set-top box, first on and
later in the TV set
58%
34%
PC becomes TV
7%
22%
Set top-box ánd PC’s
19%
15%
Multiple platforms
3%
15%
Don’t know
13%
14%
Table 10.2: Main platforms for the introduction of ITV according to television
and Internet-producers of ITV
(Total valid n=72)
10.4 Enhancement of television programmes
There are different opinions about the quality of the current offer of television
programmes. While some of the ITV producers think television is very dull and has low
quality at the moment, others hope that the specific character of television will not be
spoilt when interactivity is added. To get a clearer picture on the spread of the opinions
among the respondents, they were proposed with the following statement:
'Interactive applications will enhance/enrich the current offer of television
programmes.'
Almost all respondents (91 percent) agree that interactive applications will enhance the
current offer of television programmes, the Internet producers of ITV, however, slightly
more (95 percent) then the group of television producers of ITV (87 percent). Five
percent does not agree with the statement and 4 percent has no opinion. See figure
10.2.
5
3
7
no
91
95
87
yes
n
inio
op
no
ITV
of TV
s
r
I
of
uce
l
od cers
a
r
t
p
to net
du
pro
er
int ision
ev
tel
4
2
6
Figure 10.2: Answers to the statement 'Interactive applications will
enhance/enrich the current offer of television programmes.' (in percentages)
(Total valid n=72)
85
Generally the ITV experts expect that enriched television programmes offer more
opportunities to go deeper into contents and to have more control over the information
presented. Viewers will become active users and become part of an enriched experience.
According to some of them it is obvious that any added interactivity will be enrichment,
but others have some critical remarks to make about this enrichment.
"Enrichment/enhancement is a very broad concept. When is a programme enriched and
how far can the commercialization enter the programmes?"
The opportunity to enhance exists, but it remains to be seen whether ITV producers take
that opportunity and create innovative formats. Or whether they just seek for commercial
possibilities. Some also mention interactivity will not enrich the experience of the
consumer at all, unless it is applied for good purposes like education.
Those who disagree, think that interactivity will (sometimes) interrupt the television
viewing, and they expect that people will not like that. Interactivity offers lots
opportunities, but according to them ITV producers have to beware that some
programmes are not suited for interaction and will remain most appropriate for couch
potatoes. Even more negative is the comment of one respondent that he has no hope
that producers will succeed in developing real creative interaction. According to this
respondent we must not set our hopes too high on enrichment.
10.5 Total change of TV?
Several respondents keep pointing at the uselessness of the debate about the differences
between the PC and the TV, because they think within reasonable terms we will not
speak of television anymore, but of online multimedia in general. Others, however, are
sure television will only slightly change, but its nature will remain the same. To
investigate how the questioned ITV experts think about this discussion, they were
proposed with the following statement:
'Interactive applications will totally change the nature of television.'
Forty-nine percent agrees with the statement against 44 percent who doesn't. Seven
percent does not have an opinion on this subject. Regarding this statement there are no
differences between the group of Internet providers of ITV and the television providers of
ITV. See figure 10.3.
44
44
45
no
yes
44
n
inio
op
no
49
55
V
f IT
s o ITV
r
e
uc rs of
e
rod
al
tot net p oduc
r
pr
e
t
n
in isio
ev
tel
7
12
0
Figure 10.3: Answers to the statement 'Interactive applications will totally
change the nature of television.' (in percentages)
(Total valid n=72)
86
The following quote illustrates the opinion that interactivity will totally change the nature
of television:
"Behavioural change, interacting and personalizing the choices with household appliances
totally changes the nature of a previously passive experience where there was some
choice in channels but otherwise you got what the channels fed you."
"Television will also change the nature of Interactive applications putting them in a new
rich context. Its win win in my mind for everyone involved."
And the quotes below illustrate the opinion that television will never change completely:
"They will augment television, but not totally change it. People will always use the TV to
watch programmes and events."
"Should, but will not. There will always be a market for couch potato non interactive
programming, but it will continue to get more fragmented."
"That would be killing, as people will walk away."
"ITV will be complimentary to traditional linear TV."
10.6 Conclusion
The image of future television has a few sketchy contours, but is still far from clear.
Those who predict a convergence of television and the Internet, expect ITV to be
accessible on all kinds of devices and at different places. Especially the television group
of ITV producers is more oriented towards the television device and a separate future of
television and the Internet. The possibility of ITV to enhance television viewing seems
undisputed, but the discussion on the exact meaning of ‘enhancement’ has only just
started. While some ITV producers think personalized advertising is an enhancement,
others argue that interactivity should be added for educational instead of commercial
purposes only.
87
11 Sources of corporate images of ITV
Most of the respondents agree that eventually everybody will use ITV be it in different
ways. Therefore it is very important for them to get to know their future users very well.
What do they want, when, and how much will they be willing to pay for it? They claim
that one of the conditions for the success of ITV is that the consumer will find exactly
what he or she likes. To be able to deliver these custom-made services, the ITV
professionals have to get to know the consumer very well to get an indication of the
programmes and services that will be successful. How do they test and evaluate their
ideas, and how important do they think this is to be successful?
To investigate this the questionnaire contained a number of questions about the sources
of the images of ITV among producers. The answers, presented below, disclose a mixture
of rational thinking (extending media developments, for instance media convergence),
observation (market research, experiments, own experience of ITV), intuition (the feeling
that ITV is the medium of the future) and personal values (enthusiasm about promising
applications).
11.1 Sources of information
The respondents were presented with a list of different sources of information from which
they could choose whatever source they made use of to keep track of developments in
the ITV market. They could also add extra sources if they wanted to. Specifically, the
sources displayed in figure 11.1 were mentioned.
Anything
28
Experiments
39
Talking to customers
46
Practical information
47
Research reports
52
Magazines
74
Internet
75
Meetings with other experts
Conferences
75
82
Figure 11.1: Sources of information to keep track of developments in ITV
business (in percentages)
(Total valid n=74)
Noticeable in figure 11.1 is the observation that information about facts and promises of
ITV is derived much more from people in ones own set (acquired in meetings and
publications) than from empirical or market data. Twenty-eight percent of the
respondents mention that they use any information they can get and any possibility to
get closer to the definition of a valid business model for ITV.
88
It will be no remarkable conclusion then that almost all of the respondents – there is no
difference between television and Internet producers of ITV - indicate that they feel the
need to obtain more insight in the ITV business. See figure 11.2.
84
16
n't
o
Id
o,
n
yes
o
Id
Figure 11.2: Answers to the question ‘Do you feel the need to obtain more
insight in the ITV business?’ (in percentages)
(Total valid n=74, 5 missing values)
Those who don't think it is necessary to get more insight in the ITV business most of the
times are the ones with the longest ‘history’ in this business. Or they are the ones who
just don't think anybody else could provide them with a more useful prediction of the
future then they can themselves.
Most of the respondents, however, express the necessity to stay in tune with this
constantly evolving business. Below some of their arguments are quoted.
”As the computer generation grows into adulthood the nature of the television experience
will change dramatically. Better to learn now. We don’t want to be the ones producing in
black and white while the world has moved to color.”
“I don’t think anyone really knows what’s going to happen technically, let alone
sociologically in terms of viewing patterns, beyond the year 2000.”
“Obviously the business model for ITV is not yet understood, because up to now many
ITV experiments have failed.”
11.2 Research on ITV
To investigate if it is research the questioned ITV experts need in their search for a
suitable business model of interactive television, they were asked whether they think
sufficient research is being done on the subject of interactive television. From the
answers it can be concluded that half of all respondents argues that there is a lack of
research on matters of ITV.
89
50
44
6
no
yes
n
inio
op
no
Figure 11.3: Answers to the question ‘Do you think enough research is being
done on the subject of ITV?’ (in percentages)
Surprisingly those who think enough research is conducted on the subject of interactive
television have very different images of the current status of ITV. Some think ITV is big
business with big companies involved and big money spent on research, while others
value the ITV business as very immature and don't think research will be very interesting
unless the ITV market will really take off in a few years. Some respondents don’t believe
in research at all and prefer to go on trial and error.
Those who say ‘No, there is not enough research’ either agree that the quantity of
research should be increased, or they say ‘no’ but they mean the research being done at
the moment is of poor quality.
How the respondents value
al research and how they think about the way research is
nti
e
t
conducted at the moment,
is summarized and presented in figure 11.4.
po
on ntent
h
c
o
ear
dc
res rs an
,
l
yes ume
na
tio
s
10
a
n
r
co
y
l
l
a
s
eci
ure of
esp
g
i
f
,
ds
nd
yes
s a etho t
10
t
c
fa er m
an
t
r
th
po
to
im
e
bu
r
,
a
yes arch
is
23
e
s
dea
re
i
w
e
yn
an
,
yes
me best
33
lco
we ror is
er
nd
a
l
ia
, tr
no
23
Figure 11.4 Answers to the question ‘Do you think research can provide
relevant information?’ (in percentages)
Both groups of respondents, the Internet producers of ITV slightly more (95 percent)
than the group of television producers of ITV (89 percent), are positive that research can
contribute to the development of ITV. They do, however, have several remarks about the
90
way research is conducted at the moment. Some of them explicitly warn for too many
hype publications while a sober view is needed and they stress the importance to start
research with clear definitions of the concept of interactive television.
Ten percent argues there is too many research on the subject of technology, business
models, revenue streams and advertising while there should be more research on
potential consumers and interesting content. Without innovating new content they don't
expect it will be possible to stimulate the consumer to use ITV. Thorough research of
trends and consumer behaviour is suggested. Another ten percent attaches more value
to rational facts and figures, statistics and number of hits, because they think these are
crucial for the management to be able to do forward planning. Twenty-three percent
explains that research could be more valuable when more attention would be paid to the
choice of the method of research. At the moment a lot of research is just extrapolation of
facts and figures from either the Internet world or the television world. When ITV
producers would conduct more real-life research with panel and focus groups this would
result in a more thorough understanding of the subject of ITV.
“Maybe it is personally, but I don't believe in these "click here to buy" applications. First
we have to understand what this digital media is all about. The difference between digital
and analogue. I think there isn't enough research done to develop a new - and that's
what the digital media is - media and to develop a new visual language for this fantastic
new digital world. In general the research is done about ratings, business models,
revenue streams and advertisement. It's the CONTENT that counts and at the end of the
day that SELLS!”
Thirty three percent of the respondents, however, does not make a point of research. For
them just any new idea is welcome. It does not matter, because it is vital to be informed.
Twenty-three percent even thinks trial and error is best, and to survive it is necessary to
use your intuition and professional experience to choose for one of the thousands of
options you could take instead of not seeing the wood for the trees when loosing oneself
in too many research. The following quote I think is a good representation of this ‘trial
and error’ way of thinking.
”The medium is developing in an evolutionary manner – it is impossible to predict how it
will develop except by developing it.”
One general remark on the subject of research is that those research reports that do
have value are hardly made public and not readily shared with other producers of ITV.
“Several European operators have interactive programming on air for more than a year;
(Canal+ France, TPS France, Teledenmark). But I read very little about e.g. the
acceptance and success of their programmes. And, I’d like to see a more balanced press
about interactive television: less hype more reality.”
11.3 Testing new ITV applications
Now that there is an inventory of the value the respondents attach to research it is also
interesting to know to what extent the producers of ITV do tests before they introduce
new applications of ITV. See figure 11.5.
91
ain
ert
c
a
to
ent
ext
16
t
no
t
a lo
31
53
Figure 11.5: Answers to the question ‘To what extent do you perform tests with
the interactive programs and services you developed before you introduce them
to the consumer?’ (in percentages)
(Total valid n=74)
Almost half of them confesses that they do not test, or barely do so, before they offer
particular applications of ITV on the market. They give different reasons to explain why
they don’t do tests. Some producers mention that a good deal of the content they are
using for their ITV applications comes straight from their website which, they claim, is
very thoroughly tested. Others are still in such an early stage of organizational
development that by the time of the questionnaire they did not have anything to test yet.
Some don’t want to miss the boat and want to put the results of their pilots straight on
air, because it has to be ‘hot’. Lack of money was also one of the reasons for producers
why they don’t do tests before introduction.
”Asking consumers their reaction to something new, before it can be used, is a waste of
time. Once a service is ready we track actual usage, first in test markets, then
generally.”
In general, testing before the introduction of new ITV applications is done not as
regularly as the respondents would like to. It includes technology tests, but most of the
times misses user interaction tests. Tests are very small scale.
The other half claims to test a lot before introduction. Most often they use focus groups
for their testing. The tests vary from very formal procedures with fixed criteria to offering
customers the possibility to react on the pilots via e-mail. It is interesting to notice that
especially broadcasters and developers of educational applications claim to do a lot of
testing. They explain that testing has been part of their way of living for years.
11.4 Getting to know the consumer
How many efforts do the questioned producers of ITV make to get acquainted with the
consumer who will potentially use their new programmes and services? Figure 11.6
shows that one third of the respondents explicitly acknowledges that they go on their
own experience, trail and error or intuition. Almost two third mentions that market and
consumer research is the most important, but they also acknowledge that intuition and
trial and error is necessary to succeed. By consumer research they mean for example;
trend watching, online surveys, focus groups, brainstorming sessions, observation of
users in trials, analysis of the media use of the target group and watch what the potential
users are watching now.
92
Searching for the Holy Grail: Images
of Interactive television
r,
rro
de
n
a
ial
, tr
e
c
en
eri
er
p
x
n sum
e
o
i
on
uit
int g / c
n
i
t
rke
ma
ch
ear
res
36
64
Figure 11.6: Answers to the question ‘How do you try to get acquainted with the
characteristics and needs of the consumer?’ (in percentages)
(Total valid n=74)
11.5 Evaluation of ITV applications
After developing and introducing new programmes and services the question is if and
how the ITV producers evaluate their successes and their failures. Whether they
intentionally ask the consumer his or her opinion about an application or whether they sit
and wait till active consumers send some critical remarks via e-mail or phone. Figure
11.7 shows the spread of answers.
ing
th
no
c
mi
no
o
c
e
a
eri
crit
t)
(ye le
t
no icab
l
s
app focu
,
s
vey
sur
s
up
gro
al
sticion
i
t
sta mat
or
inf
7
10
20
29
33
Figure 11.7: Answers to the question ‘To what extent and how do you evaluate
whether the interactive programs and services for television you introduced are
successful or not?’ (in percentages)
(Total valid n=74)
Seven percent explicitly claims to do no evaluation at all and 20 percent mentions that
they just started to implement new services, so evaluation is not yet applicable to their
situation. Twenty nine percent of the respondents is doing focus group evaluations or
customer surveys whereas 10 percent evaluates by counting their net return on
investment within a specific period. Thirty-three percent writes down hits and click
through statistics to count the number of transactions and to see what the audience
growth is. For this purpose they increasingly make use of software agents to monitor
navigation and behaviour of users. Whether ITV producers integrate evaluation in the
complete process of development or whether they just count some hits, they often
mention that it is very difficult to attach the right value to the evaluation results. Because
the ITV business is still very unsecure and immature, it is too early to benchmark what is
a poor, average and excellent result.
93
11.6 Conclusion
Half of all respondents argues that there is a lack of research on matters of ITV, but at
the same time they have to confess that they barely initiate research themselves. Most of
the times testing and evaluation are no integrated part of the development process. They
prefer trial and error to discover what are the market opportunities of ITV. The
questioned ITV experts attend many seminars and conferences about the subject to see
what is going on and to hear experiences from others. This is a well-known characteristic
of emerging and persevering hypes or other exaggerated expectations of the future.
Every kind of search for a Holy Grail involves a certain passion. Perspectives stay alive
because people talk themselves into believing them.
94
12 Looking for a Business model
In spite of these uncertainties, to be listed more fully in the conclusion, one keeps
desperately searching for a feasible business model for the supply of ITV. After all, such
a model requires at least a number of certainties. Moreover, it has to be based on clear
desires, plans and directions because ITV is a multifunctional medium with very diverging
potential applications, as could be observed above. Which options are most likely to
prevail? From the expert answers it appears that at least the following options will be
part of any business model of ITV.
A first component of any business model concerned is a particular orientation to media
development: for instance, a hardware or a software orientation. Traditionally, most
attention in a technologically driven environment goes to the platform, the connection
and the equipment required, in this case whether it will be enhanced TV, enhanced PC or
TV-PC convergence. However, ITV businesses have soon discovered the strategic
importance of getting the right and winning conditional access and navigational systems.
Subsequently, orientation has clearly shifted from this kind of software to the
development of so-called ‘content’ for ITV. In this investigation content was the most
frequently used term. This multifaceted term acquired an almost mythical meaning. As
the contours of potentially successful contents of ITV couldn’t be particularly well clarified
by the respondents, looking for Content might be the most impressive case of searching
for a Holy Grail.
A potential solution is an orientation to particular applications as it is required in any
business model. From our investigation it appears that television producers of ITV keep
orienting themselves towards applications familiar to current television behaviour. These
are applications enabling viewers a better choice among and within the steeply growing
number of channels and programmes (see Table 8.2 above). They mainly concern
additional facilities. Producers ardently hope this choice behaviour will be converted into
transactions both in ordering programmes and in buying other goods and services
(electronic commerce). Internet producers of ITV are looking for more advanced
applications they developed earlier for websites trying to provide a mass audience for
them. Most of these applications enable users to search and produce information
themselves and to communicate about the results with other users. In this way they will
be able to make their own contributions to programmes. Moreover, they would be
capable of building communities of viewers and consumer organizations. A small part of
the respondents is searching for applications that are completely new. Most of these
applications are on the cutting edge of television and the Internet. A typical example is
the Dutch soap series called Big Brother (see above). This series opened up a new
television genre (‘reality soap’). In parallel a large number of very frequently visited
websites for communities of fans to the series were created. In future ITV this kind of
channels and applications will be integrated much further to create hitherto unknown
applications.
A third component of any business model attaches particular expectations of user
behaviour to applications concerned. In this case the crucial question is whether
television viewers want to be more interactive, in whatever meaning of the term. From
the questionnaire among ITV experts it clearly comes forward that Internet producers
expect higher levels of interactivity than television producers. The last called are
orienting themselves to applications only offering viewers menu choices, opportunities to
react and transactions.
A fourth component is the market perspective used. The central perspective of the large
majority of respondents clearly takes a supply-side view construed from the technical
opportunities of the applications offered. Reasoning from this perspective one is very
confident about the future success of ITV. It is only a matter of finding the right
applications with trial and error. A minority takes a demand-side view trying to reason
from the perspective of consumers. This group of respondents thinks consumers will
95
determine the course of ITV right from the start. Here one takes a more sceptical
attitude to the future of ITV. After all, the future success of ITV is not guaranteed. It is
not clear yet how users or consumers will react.
A following component is the purpose of the provider: a public or a commercial interest.
A number of public broadcasters, particularly in Europe, is very busy in developing
television and information services for the Internet. Take, for instance, the British and
German public broadcasters. It is already noticeable that they are directed to a supply of
background information in parallel to their radio and television programmes and that
they favour the production of news, current affairs programmes and documentaries.
Their commercial antipodes produce a relatively bigger portion of entertainment
programmes.
A last component to be mentioned here, as it recurs continually in the answers, is the
market strategy developed. Most experts are oriented to a mass market of families, the
core of the current television audience. They believe that gaining this market for ITV is
attainable within a short period of time. Another part of the experts directly addresses
the market sections of youth and Internet fans. For them this is a deliberate strategy
because they believe that these sections will comprise the ITV mass audience of the
future and because they suppose current television viewers have too much of a ‘couch
potato’ character. Or they view this direction as a first phase because using ITV should
be left the time to grow in the television behaviour of people.
96
PART III
97
13 Conclusion
Predictions about interactive television and the future of television are of great
importance for the development of the market for ITV. There is still a lack of knowledge
about the concrete users and the factors that influence adoption of interactive television.
This background of uncertainty intensifies the need for a clear analysis of this market to
be able to construct future plans. This research has investigated images of interactivity
held by corporate experts in the field, and compared them with the concepts of
interactivity in communication science. Based on this report and the writing of an article
about this research (Van Dijk & De Vos, forthcoming) the following can be concluded
about interactive television.
The investment-cycle of ITV programmes and services
The way providers of ITV define the concept of ITV influences their activities in this field.
New experiences and information continually influence the ideas about and concepts of
interactive television, which in turn influence the programmes and services being
developed for interactive television. It is therefore very important that they develop
insight in the potential interactivity in interactive television settings, to define appropriate
strategies for ITV. This research has tried to build up insight in the way providers of ITV
develop their strategies. One conclusion is that activities usually performed by companies
to decide upon investments in information technology, are not or hardly performed in the
case of ITV. The providers of ITV make a lot of presumptions and although most of them
believe in the success of ITV, it remains unclear how and when this will occur.
These uncertainties make it difficult to identify successful applications for ITV.
Legitimating investments is also a problem. Most respondents think it is unavoidable to
invest in interactive television, but they do for different reasons. Some feel kind of
'forced' to invest to keep up with the huge competition. They are afraid to miss the boat
if they don't react quickly. Others see a future with huge revenue potential and
numerous possibilities to extent services and reach out to the mass public and they use
that argument to justify their investments.
Having decided on the investments, providers of ITV make small use of methods to test
the programmes and services before introduction to the consumer and to evaluate the
results afterwards. This way they don't engage in a learning process that could contribute
to the development of the business model they consider to be so important. To identify
and legitimate future investments, however, this knowledge could be very valuable. It
appears as if there are few rational reasons to invest in ITV. One possible explanation for
investments in ITV might be that companies often follow their intuition. Many of them
expect trial and error to be most appropriate with innovations anyway. This way, shortterm thinking often prevails above long-term planning. From different publications about
ITV as well as the answers of the respondents can be concluded that ITV has close
resemblance to a hype. This image is intensified by the strong need for definitions of the
important concepts in the field of ITV.
The convergence of the Internet and television
From this research it appears that a business model of ITV would benefit from clear
concepts of interactivity and the future of television. Both are badly developed. Some
anticipate a complete convergence of television and the Internet. Others think these
media will remain to be distinct and separated at least partially. Especially
communication scientists and television experts are skeptical about the perspectives of
ITV. They emphasize that television is most often used in the company of others and in
the living room at a particular distance from the screen and in a relatively passive way.
98
The most important applications are consuming information and entertainment. Opposed
to that, the computer and the Internet are mainly used individually in a study or other
special room, in front of the screen and relatively (inter)active using a large terminal.
Here the main applications are searching and processing information and
(tele)communication.
Putting it this way one has to conclude that both media do not fit to each other and that
Internet on TV, or the other way round, has no future. According to James Stewart
(1998/1999), however, this stereotypic image is moving. Increasingly people, first of all
young people and singles, watch TV on their own and in other rooms than the living
room. Teletext on television, all kinds of other additional channels and telephone or email replies promote a more active, information retrieving and opinion giving television
behaviour. On the other hand, the usage of PCs and the Internet shifts to more
collectively used interfaces, for instance young people playing a computer game
together, and to other rooms and places (laptops in the living room and in transit). Here
audio-visual and entertainment applications are getting more important. And surfing on
the World Wide Web largely is a relatively passive activity of viewing and fragmentary
perception as well, to be compared to zapping channels on TV.
If these trends continue, a convergence of the Internet and television is much more likely
to happen. Furthermore, it has to be observed that the major part of innovations in the
field of interactive services comes from Internet producers and not from television
producers. So convergence is likely to be characterized by models and interfaces
developed on the Internet. However, an important conclusion of this investigation is that
technological convergence does not have to mean social convergence or a fusion in the
daily use of the media concerned. We have strongly emphasized that technological
convergence is no social convergence or a merger in daily use. From this perspective the
current tendency of a continuing differentiation of interfaces matching particular
interactive services to different applications, needs and user contexts is to be explained.
Putting it this way, one is able to predict that television and Internet uses as we know
them will develop numerous cross lines and applications to be sure, but that they will
also remain largely or at least partly separate in daily uses.
An operational definition of interactive television
With Van Dijk's definition of interactivity and the results of the research among experts
of ITV it is possible to construct a first operational definition of the concept of interactive
television. Below the four levels of interactivity distinguished are illustrated by the first
images and designs of ITV.
Two-sided- or multilateralness. A primary definition of ITV is television activity in two or
more directions. At least two actors and two actions are involved: a supplier or sender
transmits signals and a user or receiver returns signals in this way becoming a sender
himself or herself. The number of turns varies and depends upon the number of choices
the user can make (like programmes, additional information, camera angles etc.).
However, in current designs of ITV the distribution of the number of actions and their
scope are unequal. The channel outwards is much broader than the return channel. This
particularly goes for the image of ITV the people from the television world appear to have
(see below). Programme supply only becomes more extended because additional choice
options are offered. Opposed to that the viewer or user only gets a narrow return
channel consisting of signals of menu choice, potential e-mail reactions and perhaps a
limited audio or video file.
Synchronicity and space of time. The immediate succession of action and reaction
reinforces interactivity. ITV is a fairly synchronous medium. Users see their choices are
met relatively fast and they are able to give feedback immediately. However, the supplier
keeps taking up a far bigger part of the total time of interaction than the viewer or user.
Receiving ITV the viewer or user is engaged much longer with perceiving the programme
99
offered than with his/her own potential contributions to it. With this observation we move
to the behavioural dimension of interactivity.
Controlling action. The extent of control of the (inter)action process by people is the most
important dimension of interactivity in communication science. When we turn to ITV we
see the user deciding about turns and actions in communication (choice of programmes
and subsequent selections) be it within the scope of supply. In addition, the user sets the
time, speed and continuation (linear or not) of communication. These features are most
common in current descriptions and images of ITV. With all these opportunities of choice
the supplier keeps defining and producing the overwhelming part of all forms and
contents (programmes, menus). The same goes for potential changes in forms and
contents offered after the reactions of users. It is true, however, that supply can be
adjusted following the signals of viewers or users. These signals can even be included
into it, for example in the shape of homemade video and audio.
Understanding action. The level of understanding interactors are able to derive from
actions and to locate against a background of experiences and circumstances (context) is
the most important difference between face-to-face and mediated communication
(Suchman, 1987). If one considers ITV as an instance of human-medium interaction,
interactivity will halt at this fourth level. Unless one is very confident about the level of
contemporary artificial intelligence one has been able to incorporate in ITV. First designs
of ITV as human-medium-human interaction, for instance by exchanging self-made
videos, do offer some opportunities for mutual understanding and the intelligibility of
environments. However, as the number of actors involved in this kind of ITV, sometimes
called 'personal TV', 'me-TV' or 'Webcam-TV', is large mutual understanding can't be big.
Here 'users', themselves becoming producers, still do not know the background of
production and programming of the organizing suppliers. The other way round, these
suppliers have a lack of knowledge of the precise meanings and contexts of 'users'. As a
matter of fact, audience research that reaches the level of the individual user is an
important motive for the supply of ITV trying to boost pay TV and e-commerce. But the
measure of mutual understanding, actors have in human-medium-human communication
like using the telephone, is unequalled. The contents of supply, that is the substantial
programme, are not immediately adapted to the signals of individual users. Only when
identical signals of many viewers or users come forward the menu of choice might be
changed.
Uncertainties
Current perspectives of ITV are marked by large uncertainties and risks (Chalaby, 1999,
Jensen and Toscan, 1999). The complexities of the practice of this new medium are
huge. They are derived from a combination of three systems all of them still open and
liable of change in all directions: a technological, economic and social-cultural system.
The technological system of ITV can only become successful when a) it can be introduced
on a large scale, b) it will prove to be very user-friendly and c) it will offer a clear and
decisive surplus value as compared to current television and audio-visual computer
media. None of these conditions has been satisfied at the moment. It is still uncertain
which platform ITV will use predominantly. There are at least four possibilities: 1. twoway cable TV, 2. telephony connections (e.g. using ADSL), 3. digital satellites and 4.
terrestrial digital broadcasting. Moreover, it is not yet clear which kind of services (digital
television broadcasting or web-services), which protocols (TCP/IP, ATM or other) and
which conditional access models will prevail. Finally, there are still several American and
European standards of digital television competing for hegemony.
The economic system of ITV completely depends on its commercial achievement in a
fairly short term. ITV demands huge investments with doubtful returns. In the television
business one still waits for the breakthrough of pay-TV. It has already lasted long,
particularly in Europe. Looking at the Internet we have to conclude that few services are
100
profitable. The consumer is spoilt by the current supply of television and the Internet.
Most additional services looking like applications of ITV are for free or very cheap:
teletext, information websites, MP3 (music), games and the like. The most important
source of earnings on TV, advertising, heads towards a very uncertain future in the
context of ITV. The most likely result of these facts is a fairly slow evolution of ITV from
current systems and environments. To start with, current analogue television systems
will be transformed into digital systems at the expense of consumers (equipment,
subscriptions and other fees) and advertisers. The investments for innovations of ITV
services on the Internet will have to be funded by investors on the stock markets.
Presently, the astounding willingness of investors on the stock market to fund Internet
companies is the only good news for ITV as an economic system.
Just as insecure is the future of the social-cultural system of users that will have to
domesticate ITV in their daily environments (Silverstone and Hadden, 1996). This has
been emphasized in this article. User contexts still play a minor part in the technical,
economic and substantial designs of ITV. Not much is known about them. Yet we do
know from media history that the weary daily use of media does not change very fast.
After some time, users appear to be able to redesign and redefine the designs and usage
styles of a new medium offered according to their own needs. From the responses
collected in our investigation it appears that most producers of ITV have no idea how
users might define or redesign this new medium.
Presently, consumers use and understand television and computers or the Internet as
completely different media (see for example the survey in Germany of the ARDForschungsdienst, 1999). It is safe to assume that the adoption and incorporation
(domestication) of ITV in the home and other user contexts will take a decade and
presumably even more. In this time span many cultural differences will appear, like those
beginning to appear between on the American, European and Asian markets of ITV and
Internet use (see IP-Group, 1998)
Is there a need for more interactivity in viewing and using television?
Ultimately the most insecure factor is the answer to the question whether television
viewers have a need for interactivity in their relationship with this medium. A definite
conclusion of television audience research is that there is a need for a relatively passive
viewing behaviour anyway (see for example Lee & Lee (1995), Heuvelman and Peeters
(1999) and ARD-Forschungsdienst). A significant proportion of present viewers has no
need for interactive services in using their TV. Those who do have this need reveal
particular social and personality characteristics. Heuvelman and Peeters observed a
relatively small interest in ITV conducting a 1996 telephone survey in the Netherlands,
though the appeal of ITV was somewhat bigger for young people and people with low
education. The more one was used to working with a computer, the lower the appeal of
ITV. Knobloch (1998, 1999) detected in experimental research that users with low
esteem about their own capacities, not much need to control things and a relatively small
capacity of information processing are more likely to experience interactive applications
of ITV as sources of stress.
In table 12.1 the levels of interactivity in communication science (Van Dijk) are combined
with the types of activity and the corresponding applications of interactive television that
resulted from the empirical research.
101
KIND OF
ACTIVITY
APPLICATION
Choice of
channels and
programmes
•
•
•
Conditional Access Systems
Electronic Programme Guides
Decoder VCR
Choice from
menus and
transactions
•
•
Video-on-demand
Customization (choice of camera angle,
replay, more item display, plots or story
lines)
Additional channels (for background
information or advertisement)
E-commerce (goods and services)
Participation in programmes (directed)
Reaction / commentary to programmes
Contribution to programmes / channels
(not directed)
Production of own programmes /
channels (‘personal TV’)
1-3
(ITV)
Communication about / in parallel to TV
programmes (viewer / user communities)
4
(ITV)
•
Searching and
producing
information
•
•
•
•
•
Exchange/
Communication
•
LEVEL OF
INTERACTIVITY
0
(Digital TV)
3
(ITV)
Table 12.1: The (Inter)activity of Applications in Digital and Interactive
Television
According to Stewart (referred to above) the more active applications of television can be
transformed into applications of ITV. In the view of experts from the sector of television
production these will primarily be the applications fitting best to current television (the
last two rows in table 12.1 above). Looking at the five structural characteristics of
television defined in chapter 2, it can be concluded that the television producers of ITV
stick to a definition of television where the programmes will remain to be produced by
professionals. Experts from the sector of Internet production are already opting for
applications with a relatively high level of interactivity at this moment (the first two rows
of table 12.1). Their ideas reflect a broader definition of television, because they
acknowledge the increasing influence of the user on the production of the programmes
and services. However, in the television viewing behaviour of current viewers one is able
to detect an interest in both kinds of applications, from looking for better choices
between programmes and channels to shaping additional channels and viewer
communities on websites.
Following from this division of applications of interactive television it is important to add
that clear conceptualization brings forth a theoretical understanding of the concept, but
one should also realize that high levels of interactivity are an ideal type not a description
of reality (Rafaeli, 1988). People involved with ITV (the ITV experts more often than the
scientists) talk about ITV as if interactivity will change television into a more interesting
activity that completely involves the viewer into the whole experience of ITV.
Interactivity is often conceived to be the summit for everybody, all of the time, but
following from television audience research (referred to above) it can be concluded that
the level of interactivity
All the same, it will not be easy to let viewers get accustomed to higher levels of
interactivity on or via television. Presumably, this will happen much faster among young
people and experienced computer users. It is conceivable that the limited forms of
interactivity currently designed by television producers just will not be satisfactory
enough for them. So, perhaps the most important conclusion from the argument above
102
might be that interactivity has to be learned, both by producers and consumers. Doing
this all with the spirited hope that searching for this Holy Grail is worth the trouble of
such a long quest.
103
Recommendations
Following from the investigation reported here, there are some recommendations to be
made for further research on this subject.
First, the empirical survey presented in this report concerned the images of interactive
television held by corporate experts in the field of ITV. We focused on how their definition
of interactive television is created and how they think about the future of interactive
television, because this influences the content they produce. Next to this definition of
ITV, the potential consumers for the ITV content also formulate their own opinion about
ITV. There are still a lot of questions to be answered concerning the consumer adoption
of ITV. A very important question for example is, whether there is a need for more
interactivity in viewing and using television? In this research we asked the providers of
ITV how they think of these future users, but empirical investigation among the future
users themselves is necessary to acquire more detailed information about their ideas of
ITV. Consumer research could provide useful information to add to the construction of a
suitable business model.
Second, it is important to state that the conceptualization of interactivity in
communication science has only just begun. Too often the concepts of interactivity are
centered on specific media. Understanding of the usage contexts of interactive
programmes and services, however, would contribute to the development of more insight
in the potential interactivity in communication settings. The diversification of applications
available for television implies a multiplication of possible usage contexts. Therefore it is
necessary to include a study of the social and the spatial context in future theoretical
development of the concept of interactivity in general and interactive television in
particular.
104
References
A definition and a Glossary of Interactive Television. (2000). Carat Multimedia Group
Interactive TV News. [Online]. Available: http://www.itvnews.com/whatis/index.htm
ARD-Forschungsdienst (1999). Digitales und interaktives Fernsehen: Nutzererwartungen
und Akzeptanzchancen. Media Perspektiven 1999(8), 430-436
Baarda, D.B., Goede, M.P.M. de (1996). Basisboek Open Interviewen. Leiden: Stenfert
Kroese.
Bartelds, J.F., Jansen, E.P.W.A. and Joostends, Th.H. (1989). Enquêteren: het opstellen
en het gebruiken van vragenlijsten. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Bernoff, J., Mines, C., VanBoskirk, S., Courtin, G. (1998). Lazy Interactive TV. The
Forrester report. Forrester Research, Inc.
Boer, C. de, Brennecke, S.I. (1998). Media en Publiek, theorieën over media-impact.
Amsterdam: Boom.
Broadband meets Enhanced TV. Milia: The Partnership Forum & The Interactive
Television Pavilion Programme guide, 9-12 February 1999, Cannes.
Brosens, M.J. (1995). Consument en nieuwe media: naar een model van acceptatie (final
thesis) University of Utrecht: Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Mass
Communication and PR.
Burgelman, J.C. (1989). Voorspelde en te Verwachten Ontwikkelingen van Interactieve
Media. In: Bouwman, H. en N. Jankowski, Interactieve Media op komst, pp. 145-158.
Amsterdam: Otto Cramwinckel.
Carey, James (1989). Communication as Culture: Essays on media and society. New
York, London: Routledge.
Chalaby, Jean K. (1999). The broadcasting media in the age of risk: the advent of digital
television. New Media and Society, Vol. 1, Issue 3, pp. 351-363.
Chen, M. (1984). Computers in the lives of our children: looking back on a generation of
television research. In: R.E. Rice and associates (Eds.), The new media: communication,
research and technology, pp. 269-286. California: Sage.
De Clercq, B.J. (1996). Interactieve Televisie binnen ieders bereik? Kultuurleven,
Volume 63, Nr. 2, pp. 80-83.
DeFleur, M.L., Dennis, E.E. (1996). Understanding Mass Communication: A Liberal Arts
Perspective. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Delivering the Digital Future. Cable & Satellite Mediacast Seminar guide. 17-19 May
1999, London.
Elberse, A. (1996). Kijken in de toekomst: een onderzoek naar de acceptatie van nieuwe
vormen van televisie door consumenten. Doctoral thesis, Department of Communication
Sciences, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
EPG to be Uncontested TV-Based Portal for the Future. (1998). INTECO Corporation.
[Online]. Available: http://www.inteco.com/public/pu980619.htm
Felsenberg, A., Kind, T., Schanze, H., Tabeling, P. (1996). Asthetik, Pragmatik und
Geschichte der Bildschirmmedien: Statusbericht zur Situation der deutschen Pilotprojekte
zum “Interaktiven Fernsehen”. Siegen: Universität-GH Siegen.
Gardner, Robert, Shortelle, Dennis (1997). From Talking drums to the Internet: An
Encyclopedia of Communications Technology. Santa Barbara, California: AB-CLIO.
105
Hanssen, L., Jankowski, N. (1996). Multimedia Come of Age. In: N. Jankowski & L.
Hanssen (eds.), Contours of Multimedia. Luton: University of Luton Press, John Libbey
Media.
Hanssen, Lucien, Jankowski, N. & Etienne, R. (1996). Interactivity from the Perspective of
Communication Studies. In: N. Jankowski & L. Hanssen (eds.), Contours of Multimedia.
Luton: University of Luton Press, John Libbey Media.
Haring, Bruce (1999). Personalized TV no longer remote. [Online]. Available:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cte541.htm
Heuvelman, A., Peeters, A. (1999). Interactieve televisie, toekomstmuziek of toekomstige
realiteit? Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, Jaargang 27, Nr.1, 81-91.
Hulsbeek, Stijn van de (1998). Europa steekt veel energie in interactieve televisie en
’multimedia broadcasting’. Tijdschrift voor Multimedia, 11/12, december, 30-33.
Inhabited Television Research Report (1999). Communications Research Group,
University of Nottingham. [Online]. Available:
http://www.crg.cs.nott.ac.uk/research/applications/itv/
IP-Group (1998). Television 98: European Key Facts. Brussels: IP-Group.
Jensen, Jens (1999). ‘Interactivity’-Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communication
Studies. In P.A. Mayer (Ed.), Computer Media and Communication, 160-188. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Elaborated as ‘The concept of ‘Interactivity’’ in Jensen, J. and
Toscan, C. (eds.) Interactive Television, TV of the Future or the Future of TV?, pp. 25-66,
Aalborg: Aalborg University press.
Johnson, Thomas J., Kaye, Barbara K. (1999). Research Methodology: Taming the Cyber
Frontier, Techniques for Improving Online Surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 17,
323-337.
Knobloch, Silvia (1999). Interaktive Unterhaltung aus handlungtheoretischer und
persönlichkeitspsychologischer Sicht (Dissertation). Hannover: Institut fúr Journalistik und
Kommunikationsforschung, Hochschule für Muzik und Theater.
Lee, B. & Lee, R.S. (1995). How and why people watch TV: Implications for the future of
interactive television. Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (6), 9-18.
Lemos, Robert (1998). Interactive TV players debate future. [Online]. Available:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_display/0,3440,305707,00.html
Lull, J. (1990). Inside Family Viewing: Ethnographic Research on Television’s Audiences.
Londen: Routledge.
Matsushita, Shigenori (1999). What We Can Learn From the World’s First Interactive
Television Broadcasts. MML-homepage. [Online]. Available:
http://www.strl.nhk.or.jp/newstopics/mmlb/en-nc/mc28xxe.html
MMS (1999). Zoeken of Zappen? MA thesis , European Media Masters of Arts/Multi Media
Studies, Utrecht: Hogeschool voor de Kunsten Utrecht.
Morley, D. (1986). Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure. London:
Routledge.
Nathans, H. (1997). Adviseren als tweede beroep: resultaat bereiken als adviseur.
Deventer: Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie.
Nationale Internet Monitor (1997). Amsterdam: Pro Active International.
Nijdam, B., Buuren, H. van (1993). Statistiek voor de sociale wetenschappen: 3,
vergelijking groepen en regressie. Alphen a/d Rijn: Samson Bedrijfsinformatie.
Nijdam, B., Buuren, H. van (1993). Statistiek voor de sociale wetenschappen: 1 en 2,
beschrijvende statistiek en inleiding in de inductieve statistiek. Alphen a/d
Rijn/Zaventem: Samson BedrijfsInformatie.
106
Noam, Eli M. (1996). Cyber-TV: Thesen zur dritten Fernsehrevolution. Gütersloh: Verlag
Berstelsmann Stiftung.
NOS, Gezamenlijke Staf en Diensten/DTA (1999). Evaluatie van de Omroepparticipatie in
Snelnet. Hilversum: NOS.
Out of this World Report. (1998). Communications Research Group, University of
Nottingham. [Online]. Available: http://www.crg.cs.nott.ac.uk/events/ootw/
Peters, Jean-Jacques (1997). A History of Television. [Online]. Available:
http://www.dvb.org/dvb_articles/dvb_tv-history.htm
Pinto, D. (1990). Cultuur en cultuurverschillen. In: D. Pinto, Interculturele communicatie:
Drie-stappenmethode voor het doeltreffend overbruggen en managen van
cultuurverschillen, pp. 32-56. Houten/Antwerpen: Bohn, Stafleu & Van Loghum.
Rackley, Elizabeth (1998) The Digital Television Revolution: Seizing the Means of
Production or Just Switching Channels? Emory University. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ags.uci.edu/~clcwegsa/revolutions/Rackley.htm
Rafaeli, S., (1988). Interactivity: From New Media to Communication. In: Hawkins, R.P.
Wieman, J. & Pingree, S., Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and
Interpersonal Processes. Newbury Park, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Revolution Television Report, March 1999.
Röling, N.G. e.a. (1994). Basisboek voorlichtingskunde. Amsterdam:Boom.
Schultheis, S.K. (1992). Die diffusion und Adoption von Hörfunk- und
Fernsehenempfangsgeräten im Bereich der privaten Haushalte. Frankfurt am Main:
publikatie van de Johann Wolfgang Goëthe-Universität.
Shedroff, Nathan (1994). Information Interaction Design: A Unified field Theory of
Design. [Online]. Available: http://www.vivid.com/form/unified/unified.html
Silverstone, R & Hadden J. (1996). Design and Domestication. In: Mansell, R &
Silverstone,R. Communication by Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silverstone, R. (1994). Television and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.
Steuer, Jonathan (1995). Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence.
In: Biocca, F., M.R. Levy, Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality, pp. 33-56. Hove:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Stewart, James (1998/1999). Interactive television at home: Television Meets the
Internet. http:/www.itvnews.com/. Published later in Jensen, J. and Toscan, C. (eds.)
Interactive Television, TV of the Future or the Future of TV?, pp. 231-260, Aalborg:
Aalborg University press.
Swanborn, P.G. (1987). Methoden van sociaal wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Meppel:
Boom.
Sweeney, John. (1995). An Introduction to Interactive Television. [Online]. Available:
http://www.hursley.ibm.com/misc/xw-itvintro.html.
Television Meets the Web Seminar guide, 21-22 May 1999, Amsterdam.
The TV will not bring the Internet to the masses. (1998). INTECO Corporation. [Online].
Available: http://www.inteco.com/public/pd9802a.htm
Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (1997). De Netwerkmaatschappij, Sociale aspecten van nieuwe media.
Third edition. Houten NL: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Van Dijk, Jan (1999). The Network Society, Social Aspects of New Media. London,
Thousand Oaks CA, New Delhi: Sage.
Van Dijk, Jan & Vos, Loes de (forthcoming). Searching for the Holy Grail, Images of
Interactive Television. New Media and Society, Sage Publications.
107
Verschueren, Ronald (1998). Kastjeskoorts slaat toe in internetland. Tijdschrift voor
Multimedia, 9, 17-19.
Vorderer, P. & Knobloch, S. (1998). Wie erleben Rezipienten interaktive Fernsehfilme? In
H. Schanze & Kammer, H.M. (Red.) Interaktive Medien und ihre Nutzer. Baden-Baden:
Nomos
Weiner, Richard (revised and updated 1996). Webster’s New World Dictionary of Media
and Communications. New York: Macmillan.
Weiss, Mark (1998). TV v PC – what’s the future? Communications News, 36, September,
153-154.
What will television be used for when it is interactive? (1996). [Online]. Available:
http://www.mindspring.com/~cjs/professional/papers/itv/ITV3.html
Williams, F., Rice, R.E. & Rogers, E.M. (1988). Research methods and the new media.
New York: The Free Press.
108
Appendixes
A:
questionnaire (printed version)
B:
questionnaire (online version)
C:
website of the survey
D:
company names and Internet addresses of the respondents
E:
data-analysis results
109
Appendix A: Questionnaire (print version)
European Media Masters of
Arts
Department of Media and Communication
PO Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht
The Netherlands
Different perspectives on interactive television
This inquiry is part of an academic research project about the different perspectives on
interactive television that exist among providers of interactive television programs,
services and program guides throughout the world. With this research we hope to shed
some light on the concept of interactivity in combination with television to raise attention
for the specific features of interactivity via television and to contribute to a more realistic
and objective perspective on the possibilities and threats of interactive television.
Why contribute
There are many different definitions of interactive television and as many different
perspectives on the future of interactive television, but we would like to know what’s
YOURS! Your idea about interactive television is a valuable contribution to the general
conceptualization of interactive television. AND, by filling out the questions below you
have the possibility to obtain the results from this research. With these results you will
learn from the definitions of other interactive television providers worldwide as well.
Background
This research is for academic purposes. It is conducted independently and not initiated
by any commercial party. This research is for a final thesis written by graduate student
Loes de Vos at the University of Utrecht for a master’s title. This research is conducted
with the support and collaboration and under the supervision of staff members of the
University of Utrecht (Department of Media and Communication), the European Media
Masters of Arts Program 1999.
The questions
This inquiry consists of 28 questions:
§ Questions concerning your company
§ Questions concerning your offer of interactive television
§ Questions concerning your target group of consumers
§ Questions concerning your information about interactive television
§ Questions concerning your definition of and opinion about interactive television
It takes about 40 minutes to complete this inquiry.
110
The procedure
Completed inquiries can be returned to [email protected] till 18 June 1999.
You can type your answers in this document right below the questions. To check a
checkbox, type an ‘x’ between de ‘[ ]’ . After completing this inquiry you can save it as
‘itv.rtf’ and send it back to me attached to an email. Remember your argumentation is
more valuable to me than a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
The results
The results of this inquiry will be treated confidentially and shall be published
anonymously. If however, you have no objections to this information being published
together with your company information, please tick the appropriate box.
A report of this research will be published online in September 1999. If you would
appreciate to receive the results of this research, please fill in the questions ‘for the
administration’ at the end of this inquiry.
In case you have any questions about this inquiry you can contact me by email:
[email protected]
The url for the online inquiry is:
http://www.fss.uu.nl/mc/itv-research/intro.htm
Thank you in advance for your cooperation,
Yours sincerely
Loes de Vos
European Masters of Arts 1999
111
Remember:
Your argumentation is more valuable to my research
than a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
YOUR COMPANY
1. Which category typifies your company?
(You can select multiple options if necessary)
[]
Television Producer
[]
Broadcaster
[]
Internet Developer
[]
Provider of Online Content Services
[]
Software developer
[]
Infrastructure provider (satellite, cable, telecom etc.)
[]
Other
Please explain,
2. Since when is your company involved in interactive television or in other interactive
content development?
3. Which categories of interactive programs and services typify your company’s
activities?
[]
Entertainment
[ ] Games
[ ] online games [ ] offline games
[ ] Shows
[ ] Movies
[ ] Soaps
[ ] Animations
[ ] Other(s)
Description,
[]
Communication
[ ] Email
112
[ ] Video-conferencing
[ ] Online discussion platform
[ ] Chat
[ ] WWW
[ ] Mobile services (UMTS)
[ ] Other(s)
Description,
[]
Information
[ ] News
[ ] Documentary
[ ] Business
[ ] Education
[ ] Niche (news on fashion, sports etc)
[ ] Customized news services
[ ] Other(s)
Description,
[]
E-commerce
[ ] Home Shopping
[ ] Home Banking
[ ] Paid news and information services (video on demand, games for
pay, paid archives etc.)
[ ] Travel information and/or reservation
[ ] Other(s)
Description,
[]
Navigational Agents and Personalized Menus
Description,
[]
Other(s)
Description,
113
YOUR OFFER OF INTERACTIVE TELEVISION
4. Which forms of interactive services does your company offer?
You can select multiple options if that fits your companies’ activities best.
Access:
[]
Conditional access
(accessible with compensation)
[]
Non-conditional access (accessible without compensation)
Infrastructure:
[]
Digital Terrestrial
[]
Cable
[]
Satellite
[]
ADSL
[]
Analog telephone line
[]
Internet based services
[]
Hybrid combinations
Please explain,
[]
Other(s)
Orientation:
[]
Mass market
[]
Niche market
[]
General content
[]
Specialized content
[]
Other
Please explain,
5. What aspects of the interactive services you offer are relevant for interactive
television?
6. What kinds of programs and services for interactive television does your company
have in mind for the near future (two years)?
114
7. What kind of interactive television programs and services do you think other
providers of interactive television have in mind?
What is your opinion about them?
YOUR IDEA ABOUT THE FUTURE OF INTERACTIVE TELEVISION
8. Do you think it is important to invest in interactive television?
9. Who or what will be the driving force to bring interactive television into the home?
10. When do you think interactive television will soon be available in European
households? And in American, Asiatic or African households?
YOUR TARGET GROUP OF CONSUMERS
11. What is the target group of consumers for your interactive television programs and/or
services? (Specify by program/service)
12. What kind of people will use interactive television most and why?
13. To what extent do you perform tests with the interactive programs and services you
developed before you introduce them to the consumer?
14. How do you try to get acquainted with the characteristics and needs of the consumer?
115
15. To what extent and how do you evaluate whether the interactive programs and
services for television you introduced are successful or not?
16. What is your picture of the physical and social environment of the users of interactive
television? Think of the choice between the living room and the study, and the use
alone or with others.
17. How much do you think consumers will be willing to pay to access interactive
television?
18. How do you see the relation between the developments on the Internet and
interactive television?
YOUR INFORMATION ABOUT INTERACTIVE TELEVISION
19. What kind of information do you use to keep track of the development of interactive
television? (For example magazines, conferences, meetings with other experts,
practical information, Internet, research reports.)
116
20. Do you think sufficient research is being done on the subject of interactive television?
[ ] Yes, I do
[ ] No, I don’t
Why do you think so?
21. Do you think research can provide relevant information for you in the development of
this new medium?
22. Do you feel the need to obtain more insight in the future market for interactive
television?
[ ] Yes, I do
[ ] No, I don’t
Why do you think so?
YOUR DEFINITION OF AND OPINION ABOUT INTERACTIVE TELEVISION
Finally we pose some questions on your general opinion about the perspectives of
23. What would be your definition of interactive television
24. What is exactly interactive about it, as compared to traditional television?
25. Which degrees of interactivity do you foresee will be linked to the television set, as
opposed for instance to the PC?
117
26. Do you think interactive television will be introduced via decoders on existing
television sets, or do you see other developments?
27. Do you think it is possible to make a distinction between different levels of
interactivity in the applications of interactive television, which means that they are
more or less interactive?
[ ] Yes, I think so
[ ] No, I don’t think so
[ ] No opinion
Please explain,
28. Can you indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements?
‘The television user is a passive consumer: a so-called ‘couch-potato.’
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] No opinion
Please explain,
‘Interactive online services will enjoy mass market use via interactive television.’
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] No opinion
Please explain,
‘The television and the computer will melt into one medium, but will also remain to
exist separated.’
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] No opinion
Please explain,
‘Television is a medium that is capable of fulfilling the needs of the user for
communication, information, amusement and transaction to the same extent as the
computer.’
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] No opinion
118
Please explain,
‘People will have to get used to interactive applications on television and therefore
they will have to be introduced to interactivity step by step. Thus, interactive
television is not a revolution, but an evolution of television.’
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] No opinion
Please explain,
‘Interactive applications will enhance/enrich the current offer of television programs.’
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] No opinion
Please explain,
‘Interactive applications will totally change the nature of television.’
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] No opinion
Please explain,
You have nearly reached the end of this inquiry.
Make sure you don’t forget to fill out the ‘questions for administration’ on the last
page, but in the meanwhile thank you for the attention and effort you have put in this
inquiry. We highly appreciate your contribution to this research and will be happy to
inform you of the results.
119
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION
The following questions will be used for the proceedings of this research only and will not
be shared with third parties.
Name of the company
Your name
Your function
Your email address
:
:
:
:
Would you appreciate to be notified when the results of this research are online? (If you
do, don’t forget to fill out your email address above)
[]
Yes, I do
[]
No, I don’t
In principle all gathered replies will be treated anonymously. However, do let us know if
we may quote you on your responses:
[]
Please consider all the above information anonymously.
[]
Please feel free to use the above information in research publications.
[]
Please feel free to use the above information in research publications, provided I
get a chance to correct/change the final publication.
Comments:
If you have any comments about this research you can let us know. Maybe you want to
say something about subjects that are not, or not enough, discussed in the inquiry, or
about the research in general. Your opinion will be highly appreciated!
My comments are…
This is the end of this inquiry.
Thank you for your cooperation,
Yours sincerely,
Loes de Vos
([email protected])
120
Appendix B: Questionnaire (online version)
121
Appendix C: Website of the survey
122
123
Appendix D: Company names and Internet addresses of the
respondents
@Home Nederland
http://www.home.nl
ARD GERMAN TV
http://www.ard.de
Atos
http://www.atos-group.com
Axelerator
http://www.axelerator.com
Bob Ross, Inc
http://www.bobross.com
Bookmark International b.v.
http://www.bookmark.nl
Cable & Wireless communications plc
http://www.cableandwireless.com
Cap Gemini
http://www.capgemini.nl
Carat International
http://www.carat.com
Catalyst
http://www.catalystmedia.co.uk
Cell DTV Consulting
http://www.celldtv.com
Change the Script
http://www.cts.nl
Chello Broadband
http://www.chello.com
CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com
Comspan Communications Inc.
http://www.steeplechasemedia.com
Conduit Communications
http://www.conduitgroup.com
Convergence Strategies
-
Danish Broadcasting Corporation
http://www.dr.dk/engfor.htm
Digital Arts Network
http://www.gistics.com
Dipro
http://www.dipro.nl
DirecTV
http://www.directv.co.jp
Educational Broadcasting Corp. TELEAC/NOT
http://www.teleacnot.nl
Espresso
http://www.espresso.co.uk
Fantastic Corporation
http://www.fantastic.ch
Head End Interactive Television
http://www.head-end.com/index.html
Universidad de los Andes
http://www.uniandes.edu.co
Human Shareware
http://www.humans.nl
IBTV.net
http://www.ibtv.net
ICTV
http://www.ictv.com
IDP
http://www.idp.fr
Intel Corporation
http://www.intel.com
Interactive Television Entertainment
http://www.ite.dk/ite/start.htm
Jim Henson Company, The
http://www.henson.com
John de Mol Produkties
http://www.endemol.nl
Luttrell Associates Ltd.
http://www.luttrell.co.uk
Manchester Institute for Information Delivery
http://www.miid.net
McKinsey&Company, Inc.
http://www.mckinsey.com
124
Mediaplay International
-
Mentor Data System Inc.
http://www.mentor.com.tw
Mindport MCT
http://www.mindport.com
Moo Mooltimedia
http://www.mooltimedia.com
Mouse Power
http://www.mousepower.co.uk
MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com
MTV Networks Europe
http://www.m2europe.com
NCRV
http://www.ncrv.nl
NDS
http://www.ndsworld.com
Nieuw Amsterdam IT Groep
http://www.nait.nl
Noterik & Doonder Multimedia
http://www.noterik.nl
NPTV
http://www.nptv.fr
PBS
http://www.pbs.org
Pesky Ltd.
http://www.pesky.com
Philips Consumer Electronics
http://www.philips.com
Qihole
http://www.qihole.com
Quattro DMB&B
http://www.quattro.be
RTV Slovenija
http://www.rtvslo.si
Satellite Information Services
http://www.sis.co.uk
Songseekers
http://www.songseekers.co.uk
Strategy Analytics
http://www.strategyanalytics.com
Sveriges Television
http://www.svt.se
Symbionics
http://www.symbionics.co.uk
TBWA/E-company
http://www.e-company.nl
Total Sports Inc.
http://info.totalsports.net
TPS
http://www.tps.fr
Two Way TV Ltd.
http://www.twowaytv.co.uk
University of Aveiro
http://www.ua.pt
Uproar Europe
http://www.uproar.com
Videotron
http://gvl.videotron.com/vl-a.html
VPRO
http://www.vpro.nl
Wales Digital College
http://www.digitalcollege.co.uk
Westdeutscher Rundfunk Koln
http://www.wdr.de
Worldgate Communications
http://www.wgate.com
Workhouse
http://www.workhouse.ltd.uk
125
Appendix E: Data-analysis results
6. What kinds of programs and services for interactive television does your
company have in mind for the near future (two years)?
1
Interactive services not connected to television programming
2
Interactive programming and services based on television
programming
3
Internet on television
4
Interactive services not connected to television programming AND
interactive programming and services based on television
programming
5
internet on television
6
Interactive programming and services based on television
7
interactive programming and services based on television
8
No comment / confidential
9
Whatever / we don’t know yet
Frequency
Tv Internet
Valid
Tv
Internet Total
1
4
12
12,9
29,3
22,2
2
13
7
41,9
17,1
27,8
3
2
2
6,4
4,9
5,6
4
6
11
19,4
26,8
23,6
5
1
1
3,2
2,4
2,8
6
0
1
0
2,4
1,4
7
0
2
0
4,9
2,8
8
1
2
3,2
4,9
4,2
9
4
3
12,9
7,3
9,7
31
41
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
31
41
100
100
100
Total
Missing
Percent
No answer
Total
126
10. When do you think interactive television will soon be available in European
households? And in American, Asiatic or African households?
Continent * When ITV Crosstabulation
when itv
Continent
USA
firtst usa
later
Europe
firtst usa
later
Europe
Count
4
Continent
USA
Count
4
% within
continent
% within
continent
% of
Total
% of
Total
Europe
Count
first
europe
later usa
first
europe
later usa
4
fast
global
reach
fast
global
reach
Total
don't
know
don't
know
7
15
4
7
15
26,7%
26,7%
46,7%
100,0%
26,7%
26,7%
46,7%
100,0%
5,4%
5,4%
9,5%
20,3%
5,4%
5,4%
9,5%
20,3%
9
27
11
9
56
Count
9
27
11
9
56
% within
continent
% within
continent
% of
Total
% of
Total
Asia
Count
16,1%
48,2%
19,6%
16,1%
100,0%
16,1%
48,2%
19,6%
16,1%
100,0%
12,2%
36,5%
14,9%
12,2%
75,7%
12,2%
36,5%
14,9%
12,2%
75,7%
2
1
3
Count
2
1
3
66,7%
33,3%
100,0%
66,7%
33,3%
100,0%
2,7%
1,4%
4,1%
2,7%
1,4%
4,1%
Total
% within
continent
% within
continent
% of
Total
% of
Total
Count
13
31
20
10
74
Total
Count
13
31
20
10
74
% within
continten
t
% within
continten
t
17,6%
41,9%
27,0%
13,5%
100,0%
17,6%
41,9%
27,0%
13,5%
100,0%
Europe
Asia
127
% of
Total
17,6%
41,9%
27,0%
13,5%
100,0%
11. What is the target group of consumers for your interactive television
programs and/or services? (Specify by program/service)
Valid
Mass market, not very
targetted
Specifically defined
target groups
Total
Argumentation not
sufficient to apply
category
Missing
Total
Frequency Percent
25
33.8
Valid Percent
42.4
34
45.9
57.6
59
15
79.7
20.3
100.0
74
100.0
12. What kind of people will use interactive television most and why?
Valid
Missing
Total
We don't know yet
Everybody right from
the beginning
Youth/pc savy people
first
Non-pc people first
Total
No answer
Frequency Percent
5
6.8
16
21.6
Valid Percent
6.9
22.2
34
45.9
47.2
17
72
2
74
23.0
97.3
2.7
100.0
23.6
100.0
13. To what extent do you perform tests with the interactive programs and
services you developed before you introduce them to the consumer?
Valid
Missing
Total
Not
To a certain extent
Always/a lot
Total
No answer
Frequency Percent
22
29.7
11
14.9
38
51.4
71
95.9
3
4.1
74
100.0
Valid Percent
31.0
15.5
53.5
100.0
14. How do you try to get acquainted with the characteristics and needs of the
consumer?
128
Valid
Missing
Total
Marketing / consumer
research
Experience, trial and
error, intuition
Total
No answer
Frequency Percent
45
60.8
Valid Percent
64.3
25
33.8
35.7
70
4
74
94.6
5.4
100.0
100.0
15. To what extent and how do you evaluate whether the interactive programs
and services for television you introduced are successful or not?
Valid
Missing
Total
Nothing
Not (yet) applicable
Surveys / focus groups
Statistical numbers
Economic criteria
Total
No answer
Frequency Percent
5
6.8
14
18.9
20
27.0
23
31.1
7
9.5
69
93.2
5
6.8
74
100.0
Valid Percent
7.2
20.3
29.0
33.3
10.1
100.0
16. What is your picture of the physical and social environment of the users of
interactive television? Think of the choice between the living room and the
study, and the use alone or with others.
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Tv Internet
Tv
Study/alone
1
7
3
17
10
4
18
11
Living/social
13
14
42
34
38
48
36
42
Both/both
4
11
13
27
20
15
28
22
Both/alone
1
1
3
2
2
4
3
3
Living/both
6
4
19
10
15
22
10
16
Living/alone
2
2
7
5
6
7
5
6
27
39
87
95
91
100
100
100
4
2
13
5
9
31
41
100
100
100
Total
Missing
Percent
No answer
Total
Internet Total
Tv
Internet Total
129
17. How much do you think consumers will be willing to pay to access
Valid
Missing
Total
It depends
Low to zero costs
Comparable to costs
for
tv /pc at this moment
A lot
Total
No answer
Frequency Percent
20
27.0
30
40.5
20
27.0
3
73
1
74
4.1
98.6
1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
27.4
41.1
27.4
4.1
100.0
18. How do you see the relation between the developments on the Internet and
Valid
Missing
Total
Internet and tv
remain different
Internet and tv will
merge
Total
No answer
Frequency
27
Percent
36.5
Valid Percent
37.0
46
62.2
63.0
73
1
74
98.6
1.4
100.0
100.0
20. Do you think sufficient research is being done on the subject of interactive
television?
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
36
36
32
32
4
Percent
48.6
48.6
43.2
43.2
5.4
Valid Percent
50.0
50.0
44.4
44.4
5.6
No opinion
4
5.4
5.6
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
72
2
2
74
74
97.3
2.7
2.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
130
Answers to question 20 splitted for TV group and Internet group
tv group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
14
14
16
16
0
Percent
52
52
45
45
0
Valid Percent
53
53
47
47
0
No opinion
0
0
0
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
Internet group
30
1
1
31
31
97
1
1
100
100
100
Percent
51
51
37
37
10
Valid Percent
51
51
37
37
10
Valid
Valid
Missing
Missing
Total
Total
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
21
21
15
15
4
No opinion
4
10
10
Total
No answer
No answer
40
1
1
41
41
1
1
1
100
100
100
21. Do you think research can provide relevant information for you in the
development of this new medium?
Valid
Missing
Total
No
Yes
No opinion
Total
No answer
Frequency
6
64
0
70
4
74
Percent
8.1
86.5
0
94.6
5.4
100.0
Valid Percent
8.6
91.4
0
100.0
Categorized argumentation question 21:
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
131
Valid
Missing
Total
Yes, any new idea is
welcome
Yes, but other methods
of research are
important
Yes, research on
potential consumer s
and content
Yes, especially rational
facts and figures
No, real life, trial and
error is best
Total
No argumentation
given
16
21.6
33.3
11
14.9
22.9
5
6.8
10.4
5
6.8
10.4
11
14.9
22.9
48
26
64.9
35.1
100.0
74
100.0
Answers from question 21 splitted for TV group and Internet group:
tv group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
3
3
25
25
0
Percent
10
10
81
81
0
Valid Percent
11
11
89
89
0
No opinion
0
0
0
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
28
3
3
31
31
91
9
9
100
100
100
Percent
5
5
93
93
0
Valid Percent
5
5
95
95
0
Internet group
Valid
Valid
Missing
Missing
Total
Total
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
2
2
38
38
0
No opinion
0
0
0
Total
No answer
No answer
40
1
1
41
41
98
2
2
100
100
100
22. Do you feel the need to obtain more insight in the future market for
132
Valid
No
Yes
Total
Missing No answer
Total
Frequency
11
58
69
5
74
Percent
14.9
78.4
93.2
6.8
100.0
Valid Percent
15.9
84.1
100.0
tv group
Valid
Valid
Missing
Missing
Total
Total
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
4
4
24
24
0
Percent
13
13
77
77
0
Valid Percent
14
14
86
86
0
No opinion
0
0
0
Total
No answer
No answer
28
3
3
31
31
90
10
10
100
100
100
Percent
15
15
80
80
0
Valid Percent
15
15
85
85
0
Internet group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
6
6
33
33
0
No opinion
0
0
0
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
39
2
2
41
41
95
5
5
100
100
100
26. Do you think interactive television will be introduced via decoders on
existing television sets, or do you see other developments?
Valid
Missing
First settop boxes
later built in tv set
Settop boxes and pc's
Technological
convergence (tv=pc)
Multiple platforms
Don't know
No argumentation
given
Frequency
34
Percent
45.9
11
13
14.9
17.6
8
8
0
10.8
10.8
0
133
Total
74
100.0
28a ‘The television user is a passive consumer: a so-called ‘couch-potato.’
tv group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
18
18
12
12
1
Percent
58
58
39
39
3
Valid Percent
58
58
39
39
3
No opinion
1
3
3
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
31
0
0
31
31
100
0
0
100
100
100
Percent
61
61
34
34
5
Valid Percent
61
61
34
34
5
Internet group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
25
25
14
14
2
No opinion
2
5
5
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
41
0
0
41
41
100
0
0
100
100
100
28b ‘Interactive online services will enjoy mass market use via interactive
television.’
tv group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
10
10
16
16
5
Percent
32
32
52
52
16
Valid Percent
32
32
52
52
16
134
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
31
0
0
31
31
100
0
0
100
100
100
Percent
12
12
78
78
10
Valid Percent
12
12
78
78
10
Internet group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
5
5
32
32
4
No opinion
4
10
10
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
41
0
0
41
41
100
0
0
100
100
100
28c ‘The television and the computer will melt into one medium, but will also
remain to exist separated.’
tv group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
9
9
19
19
3
Percent
29
29
61
61
10
Valid Percent
29
29
61
61
10
No opinion
3
10
10
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
31
0
0
31
31
100
0
0
100
100
100
Percent
15
15
84
84
Valid Percent
15
15
84
84
Internet group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
Frequency
6
6
34
34
135
Missing
Missing
Total
Total
No opinion
1
1
1
Total
No answer
No answer
41
0
0
41
41
100
0
0
100
100
100
28d ‘Television is a medium that is capable of fulfilling the needs of the user for
communication, information, amusement and transaction to the same extent as
the computer.’
tv group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
19
19
11
11
1
Percent
61
61
36
36
3
Valid Percent
61
61
36
36
3
No opinion
1
3
3
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
31
0
0
31
31
100
0
0
100
100
100
Percent
61
61
37
37
2
Valid Percent
61
61
37
37
2
Internet group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
25
25
15
15
1
No opinion
1
2
2
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
41
0
0
41
41
100
0
0
100
100
100
28e ‘People will have to get used to interactive applications on television and
Therefore interactive television is not a revolution, but an evolution of
television.’
tv group
136
Valid
Valid
Missing
Missing
Total
Total
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
4
4
25
25
2
Percent
13
13
81
81
6
Valid Percent
13
13
81
81
6
No opinion
2
6
6
Total
No answer
No answer
31
0
0
31
31
100
0
0
100
100
100
Percent
29
29
69
69
2
Valid Percent
29
29
69
69
2
Internet group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
12
12
28
28
1
No opinion
1
2
2
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
41
0
0
41
41
100
0
0
100
100
100
28f ‘Interactive applications will enhance/enrich the current offer of television
programmes.’
tv group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
2
2
27
27
2
Percent
7
7
87
87
6
Valid Percent
7
7
87
87
6
No opinion
2
6
6
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
31
0
0
31
31
100
0
0
100
100
100
Percent
3
3
Valid Percent
3
3
Internet group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Frequency
1
1
137
Missing
Missing
Total
Total
Yes
No opinion
39
1
95
2
95
2
No opinion
1
2
2
Total
No answer
No answer
41
0
0
41
41
100
0
0
100
100
100
28g ‘Interactive applications will totally change the nature of television.’
tv group
Valid
Valid
Missing
Missing
Total
Total
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
17
17
14
14
0
Percent
45
45
55
55
0
Valid Percent
45
45
55
55
0
No opinion
0
0
0
Total
No answer
No answer
31
0
0
31
31
100
0
0
100
100
100
Percent
44
44
44
44
12
Valid Percent
44
44
44
44
12
Internet group
Valid
Valid
No
No
Yes
Yes
No opinion
Frequency
18
18
18
18
5
No opinion
5
12
12
Total
Missing No answer
Missing No answer
Total
Total
41
0
0
41
41
100
0
0
100
100
100
138

SEARCHING FOR THE HOLY GRAIL

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Television - Inglês 200 horas

abstracts - Comunicação e Cultura

Here - Evens Foundation

TELEVISION BUREAU OF CANADA

Inglês - Vestibular PUC-SP

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Children, Adolescents, and

Introduction to Special Issue: Human-Centered - PUC-Rio

Portuguese television fiction and historical narratives 2000

1st GLOBAL ITV Workshop At UFPA

contact company website profile company looking for genres

Prototype planning report for set-top box and playout