Is it possible to implement interactive television models without making millionaire investments? It can certainly be done, if we start from a premise that we often forget: interactivity comes from programming design, not from the adoption of one or another technical platform. It may seem absurd to make this statement in the pages of a magazine like TV and Video but that's the way it is.
Who do we interact with?
For a minute let's stop thinking like producers, engineers or filmmakers. Let's think like viewers. That an interactive piece is such, is the contribution of the user. The key to success for an interactive product is not the availability of state-of-the-art electronic toys. It is the participation of the public. From the moment viewers accept that their relationship with a TV show should not be passive, the product begins to have a potential for interactivity.
Let's put this in another way: we can count on a sophisticated assembly to handle rich content, we can equip our viewers with the most modern terminal equipment, we can hire the most talented multimedia content designers but if we do not get the public to participate, we are not doing interactive television, we are just wasting time and resources.
And what does it take for the public to want to participate in an interactive program? First of all, attractive content, which has always been the basic ingredient of good television. And, in addition, serious marketing work is required: to hook the public you have to know it.
Attention! Isn't it assumed that we already know our audience? That's something that's implicit in our successful performance as programmers. Our grid is supposed to respond exactly to what the public wants, but the truth is that these assumptions are not enough to address the implementation of interactive programming.
Let's review our demographic information: do we know how many users would be willing to participate, even if it comes at a direct cost to them? Do we have true data on internet access in homes? Do we have commercial schemes capable of supporting interactivity experiments outside of primetime?
Conclusion No. 1: Before thinking about producing interactive programming, you have to do important marketing and programming design work.
How do we interact?
From a technical perspective, the essential problem of interactivity is to provide a return path for audience-originated content. Which brings us to a very important factor: we don't just need viewers willing to respond. We also need a skillful audience, capable of handling the platform that allows them to contribute their grain of sand to our interactive project.
The competence of the public as an interlocutor of television does not depend only on their training as a user of novel devices. Generally, that is not a problem, since the most sophisticated interactive systems are operated by pots very similar to the remote control of a VCR. The real problem is access: the newest interactivity platforms require a significant investment and someone has to pay for that.
If we talk about cable operations, the problem is relative: many Pay-TV networks already have an interactivity platform, perfectly capable of supporting applications such as surveys, online purchases and simple games. What happens is that they have decided to restrict their use to supporting pay-per-view applications, or in the best case, to mount information systems that have more intranet than television. And the truth is that this attitude is not at all far-fetched if we consider that the business of cablers is to program no produce.
This brings us to a neuralgic point: assembling interactive systems is easier for cablers than for free-to-air television operators. Who has a terrestrial network, has solved most of the problem without having to propose to its users an extra cost for last mile connections. Let's be honest: is it feasible to think about programming alliances between cablers and teleoperators? Maybe we can't expect many results on that side.
Conclusion No. 2: If a television station wants to set up an interactive project, it must have its own network to capture return information.
How (it is supposed) to make interactive TV
For many years it has been discussed whether serious interactive television applications should be mounted on PCs disguised as televisions or on televisions disguised as PCs. Finally, the market came up with a Solomonic solution: most of TVI's current proposals use set top boxes, which are nothing more than terminal devices that manage the presentation of content and allow to capture responses from users. The world of set top boxes is also the world of middleware, software systems that allow interactive applications to be implemented in a more or less conventional television environment.
Middleware is a software layer that operates as an intermediary between the operation of a cable header or television station and the demands of users. It is the administrator of content delivery and return path. But the most important thing about a middleware system is that it works as a development environment for interactive applications applications that are created based on a more or less wide repertoire of basic operations: selection of multiple options, data logging for commercial transactions, email management
What can we expect from such a sophisticated installation? First of all, transporting rich content in parallel with normal streaming. Online shopping, web connectivity, video on demand all the almost magical things that the industry has been announcing for ten or twelve years.
This type of system works very well, but its initial cost is high, it usually requires investment on the part of users and in most cases the creation of special departments is needed for its administration and for content generation. And they have a very serious problem: the type of users who could support these networks is already elsewhere because generally for several years he has been a regular user of the web and it is very possible that "watching television" is not an important part of his life.
This has led some interactive app designers to revive the old competition between TVs and computers: the potential audience is on their PC for many hours each day then it may be a good idea to bring the TVI experience to that environment. Has anyone seen the Windows Media Center demos? It's about exactly that: making the experience of watching TV a part of the universe of digital entertainment options.
Meanwhile, another branch of industry advocates for local interactivity. Devices like TiVO, DVD recorders with hard drives, and some smart set top boxes try to change the way the user relates to TELEVISION. Basically, they are tools dedicated to managing the monumental offer of pay-TV systems by trying to filter content, record it and defer it according to the interests of the user. For many viewers, TiVO becomes the gateway to "full utilization" of television. And with the addition of a simple metadata interpreter you can become the perfect vehicle to deliver personalized advertising.
At this point there is a question. These types of systems exist, work and are viable in many markets. Sometimes it succeeds and captivates good segments of the public. Isn't it worth asking ourselves if television packaged in a different medium is still television? Sooner or later, interactive content will have to stop being a companion to conventional broadcasts and begin to contribute to the creation of new narrative forms, new genres and new commercial alternatives.
Conclusion No. 3: sooner or later the computer+TV route will triumph, and we will no longer be doing television, but entertainment channels.
Naïve solutions
To make interactive TV we do not need to become IT experts, acquire special applications, make a montage worthy of an ISP, market terminal devices, be willing to support users and all this to support a few hours of programming a day.
Again let's make an effort to stop thinking like producers. When did interactive television start? From the point of view of theorists, with the videotext experiments of the late sixties. For the producers, with the video game programs of the eighties. But for users, interactivity began more than 70 years ago, when live radio programs began receiving "live" phone calls. The first return device for real-time interactive applications was the humble telephone hybrid.
Is it possible to implement modern interactive applications using terrestrial telephony? Let the facts speak. In Brazil, opinion programs use call centers to capture information during broadcasting. Many regional stations broadcast talk shows that generate several hundred calls for each broadcast. In the world of low-budget television with miserable schedules it is common to find talk shows that feed on calls from lonely late-nighters.
Is it worth investing time and money in making interactive TV "poor"? Let's see it as a research and development effort. Any project that achieves moderate success by telephone can then be promoted, updated or transported to the sophisticated world of serious interactivity. And a proven format is an important asset in the world of television.
This type of accessible programming meets the minimum conditions of interactivity: the viewer is attracted by the possibility of contributing to statistics or listening to ordinary people on TV. Anyone can use a phone, and the backhaul has excellent coverage, with operating costs that most users consider negligible.
Let's put a little more technology into this cocktail: let's think, for example, of channels that sell music videos using audio response systems. In video game programs that use telephone tone interfaces. Or in the call centers that attend the "call now" of the telemarketing programs.
Conclusion No. 4: All this is interactive television, users accept it as such and it is already working on telephone networks based on copper wire.
The next step
Why set up a network if there are operators of other communications services that have space available in theirs? Most mobile operators are willing to partner with television to provide return routes. The king of interactive TV, now and for many more years, is SMS, the short message system. Text messages support reality surveys, "live" message boards, classified ads, televised chatrooms
What is the most attractive thing about an SMS-based platform? That does not require a header. With a couple of pieces of software and a few PCs, mobile operators can deliver a fairly bulky data stream to the channel master . What do you do with that data? That depends on the design of each program, although for now we are restricted to text; it is possible that in the near future multimedia content originating from mobile phones, including almost live moving video, could be included.
From the engineering point of view, the problem is to put on the screen the contents delivered by the telephone company. The canonical way to do this would be using a sophisticated character generator with the ability to handle remote databases, or a real-time graphics system with automated operation capability, but the truth is that most television stations that are using systems of this type usually resort to personal computers and scan converters . to convert texts into video. A few nanoseconds of resolution may be lost, but this option costs very little.
Let us now think of ourselves as producers. What can be done with a system that allows you to efficiently manage a large flow of text messages? We already see things like homework help programs, witches and spiritualists of all calibers, complex networks of contacts and personal notices, curious mixtures between the hangman's game and strip tease sessions, all kinds of contests and betting systems. We have to admit that this is also interactive television, although it does not resort to sophisticated platforms, specially designed for these purposes.
And best of all, this is achieved with terminal equipment purchased by users, who already know how to handle it and are willing to pay per event, to participate in our interactive programs. What could be better than this for now?
Final conclusion: we were doing interactive TV several years ago and we had not noticed.
Leave your comment