Kiran
Karnik
Managing Director, Discovery Communications India.. |
 |
 |
|
|
The
typewriter, the cyclostyling machine and the rotary-dial
telephone have all disappeared, consigned to oblivion
by the march of technology. In many homes in India,
the radio set seems to await a similar fate. A different
style and content have helped FM radio to almost completely
displace the traditional AM medium-wave/short-wave sets
in the upper tier of households in Delhi and Bombay.
Cheap audio cassettes and CDs, and low-cost players
have also eaten into traditional radio’s audience. But,
above all, TV has been the major factor that has sowed
doubts about the future of radio.
Youngsters of today find it difficult to imagine an
era when television did not exist. So pervasive has
television become, so visible its presence and important
its effects, that urban and even semi-urban India can
hardly conceive of life without TV. Yet, in all but
a few small parts of India, television is but a quarter-century
old. Over this period, the TV set has now become an
essential fixture in all upper- and middle-class households,
and is not uncommon even in poorer homes in urban slums.
Its poor cousin, the radio set, is now generally banished
into unopened cupboards, and the large, older set is
considered a quaint but definitely obsolete decorative
piece.
|
 |
 |
|
Despite
this dominance of TV, despite.its looming, larger-than-life
presence, the question arises: will new technologies mean
the end of TV? Will TV face the same fate as radio? In
the era of the Net does, ‘conventional’ TV have a future
at all?
A number of factors lend considerable validity to these
questions. The first of these is the increasing convergence
of television and computer technologies. Driven by digitalization,
television is today increasingly delivered as a ‘bit-stream’
that is indistinguishable from computer data bit-streams.
Increasing data-delivery needs requiring faster speeds
have moved computer connections to broad-band cable or
high bandwidth wireless (terrestrial or via satellite),
even as new techniques for vastly increased data-delivery
over telephone lines have opened up the possibility of
carrying video over these lines. These new developments
have made it possible to receive e-mail or browse the
Net on a TV set, through a ‘set-top box’. At the same
time, the computer monitor can be transformed into a TV
set. Given the technological feasibility of convergence
of these two, it is possible that only one may ultimately
survive. Clearly, in a digital world, the digital-from-birth,
intelligent device (the computer) is almost certain to
win over the idiot-box.
The survival of ‘conventional’ television is threatened
by another development: the birth of interactive TV. The
convergence of technologies makes it possible to convert
the TV set into an interactive device. With two-way connectivity,
viewers can respond to a programme through queries, answers,
data-base searches, orders for purchase of items advertised
on screen etc. This could help TV to survive, but one
can argue that this transformation is the birth of a ‘new’
medium, and that conventional TV will die.
A third threat to today’s television comes from so-called
personal video recorders. These PVRs are the new-age versions
of the traditional video cassette recorder, more commonly
known as VHS (Video Home System) in India. These solid-state
devices can record a few hours of television, and have
very considerable intelligence built into them — in fact,
they are basically computers. They can be pre-programmed
to record at particular times, or particular programmes;
they can eliminate commercials or unwanted breaks; their
storage enables one to answer a phone call or be otherwise
diverted and yet not miss any part of the programme being
telecast: these are but some of the features of these
devices, which are certain to get even more sophisticated.
PVRs clearly threaten TV from a different point of view:
they require television channels to invent completely
new business models. For, such a device can be programmed
to ‘create’ a personal channel, by picking and recording
select programmes from various channels. A viewer could
thus come back home and watch, for example, half an hour
of relaxing Nature programmes from one channel, followed
by local news from some other channel and international
news fromanother; a lively music video from a niche channel
would then follow before an old film classic. Each viewer
making selections of different programmes from different
channels would mean thousands of personalised channels
— with none having any brand identity. Clearly, the millions
invested on creating and promoting channels-as-brands
may well be in danger of getting no return. Further, the
viewer could eliminate all commercials, and if commercials
have no viewers, advertisers are not going to be paying
lakhs of rupees for a thirty-second spot. Thus, PVRs could
turn the television industry topsy-turvy. . |
|
They
say that the idiot box works on the principle that there
is little intelligence on either side of the screen.
But if this somewhat cynical view of human nature be
true, it will not mean the end of conventional television.
|
|
Yet,
before we write conventional television’s epitaph, let
us note that what is outlined earlier are but technological
elements and possibilities. We know that sociological
and cultural factors often override technology. Why else
would computer-owning households buy and read newspapers
that they can access far more easily on the Net? Why would
people with sophisticated home-theatre systems in which
they have invested thousands still go to a cinema theatre?
Why would tens of thousands of spectators go to a cricket
match when they can get a far better view on their TV
sets? It is, indeed, more than likely that a majority
of people would, for a major part of time, prefer to sit
back and be entertained rather than ‘work’ for their entertainment.
In other words, the ‘lean-back’ passivity of the couch
potato may be the dominant mode rather than the ‘lean-forward’
enthusiasm of the computer geek. One may well say that
the idiot box works on the principle that there is little
intelligence on either side of the screen. If this somewhat
cynical (pessimistic?) view of human nature be true, then
all the exciting new technologies will result in new applications,
maybe even a ‘new’ medium, but will not mean the end of
conventional television. Even so, the newer forms of TV
— interactive TV, ad-free channels, individualised channels
— will become an increasingly important part of the media
scene. Technological convergence, lower costs and availability
of broad-band links will all facilitate the growth of
the new medium. Even one new ‘killer application’ that
fully exploits the new possibilities will give a major
boost to deeper penetration of interactive TV. This will
mean a complete re-orientation of the TV industry. Specific
content, electronically tagged to reflect subject/writer/artists/locales
etc., will facilitate the search-and-record function of
PVRs. Content will become more important than channels,
and as subject-content becomes a commodity, context or
‘attitude’ towards content (e.g. MTV, or Lonely Planet
on Discovery Channel) will become the differentiator.
Pay channels will have to give way to pay-per-view programmes.
Content will have to be re-engineered to promote and facilitate
interactivity with the viewer, and will have to be backed
up by (or linked to) associated databases. The whole paradigm
of advertising will have to change, and seamless advertising,
embedded in programmes, will be the norm. Advertisers
will then invest or co-produce programmes rather than
buying time (spots) on TV. Marketing will take a full
circle, from promoting and selling programmes to channel
marketing and now back to selling individual programmes.
The challenges in managing technology, creativity and
change will need new strategic insights, even as research
and delving into the mind-space of the consumer become
more important. Even as these changes become inevitable,
they will be adopted by users (viewers) only slowly. Habit,
culture and the human psyche will ensure that the passive,
inane, but well-packaged entertainment programmes continue
to rule the roost. In the short and medium run, then,
conventional TV will continue to thrive; but those looking
at longer time horizons had better plan for a time when
conventional TV sets join the slide projector, the radiogram
and the typewriter in the attic.
(The views expressed here are those of the writer)
|
|
