The year serendipity defeats the algorithm in TV land? Part Two
The year serendipity defeats the algorithm in TV land? Part Two
The case for Serendipity
As discussed in the last post, there is growing evidence for the permeating influence of algorithms within the world of TV and more broadly across various aspects of our culture. In this post I’ll argue for the involvement of human emotions in conjunction with algorithms to inform the future direction of the TV industry.
Whether we give our personal data knowingly or otherwise, algorithms increasingly know where you’ve been, what you like, where you might be going next and even why and when you’re going. They assume a level of knowledge about us based on the digital trail we leave. In a recent article in GOOD , leading Republican strategist Alex Gage discussed the use of this data in the growing political campaigning field of “predictive analytics” or micro-targeting using the “data exhaust” we all leave when online to successfully tailor political messages at the right time to the right people and in the right place.
ME-TV
So if politicians are getting to grips with consumer behavioural data beyond the ballot box, clearly, there is a tempting opportunity for the TV industry to make use of these technologies too. A hot topic right now is content recommendation technologies – using data to determine what content to serve up, what content we might like to see, what content to hide, ordering of ads, etc, etc. These engines are designed to help us navigate and discover content, characters, plots, stories that reinforce our world view based on our previous viewing behaviours. The idea of using this data to provide better viewer understanding both for editorial and commercial purposes is something that Channel 4 in the UK is pioneering through its ‘Viewer Relationship Management’ platform. In the same way the politician is now looking beyond the polls, TV execs are looking beyond Nielsen/ BARB.
There is, however, a growing number of critics such as author Eli Pariser who argue that a hyper-targeted, personalised world, although it may make the world more ‘relevant’, doesn’t actually make the world intrinsically or extrinsically better off. Leading digital culture thinker Clay Shirky sums up Pariser’s book the ‘Filter Bubble: What the internet is hiding from you’ , as explaining how Internet firms increasingly show us less of the wide world; “locating us in the neighborhood of the familiar”. The risk, as Eli Pariser shows, is that “each of us may unwittingly come to inhabit a ghetto of one”. In the book, Pariser goes on to argue;
“Personalization isn’t just shaping what we buy… Thirty-six percent of Americans under thirty get their news through social networking sites. As we become increasingly dependent on the Internet for our view of the world, and as the Internet becomes more and more fine-tuned to show us only what we like, the would-be information superhighway risks becoming a land of cul-de-sacs, with each of its users living in an individualized bubble created by automated filters—of which the user is barely aware – not exposing us to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview”.
Essentially, the data we are leaving tells whoever (or whatever) a story of who we are. But, and I think rather importantly for the world of TV and perhaps more broadly, not on who I want to be. Rather the data and resulting algorithmic predictions and recommendations are based on past behaviours rather than future intentions or will.
Connecting audiences, not devices.
There is a final factor that influences the stories we consume through TV. And that is a yearning for connection. At its most basic, humans are communal creatures. We are influenced mostly by those around us – a heavily researched sociological field popularized through authors such as Mark Earls and David Brooks’ books on the topic. delete ). In the world of TV, content consumption may stop when the show does but our enjoyment is heightened by the inherent subscionscious knowledge that others may be watching too, inviting us to share the experience the next day with colleagues, friends etc. Or, as is increasingly the trend, connecting with people whilst the show is on: Twitter UK General Manager Tony Wang cited stats showing that 80% of under-25s are using a second screen to communicate with friends while watching TV, while 72% of them are using Twitter, Facebook and other mobile apps to comment on the shows they watch.
Fundamentally, we use stories we consume on TV to create and maintain connections in our lives.
Human editors take these last two factors into account – our yearning for connection and identifying our past behaviour may not indicate future behaviour. Algorithms do not. This final filter requires judgement through hunches, emotion and interpretation, not black and white raw binary data. There is a human opinion factor that no algorithm in the world can replicate and arguably nor should we look to create one that could. As a consequence broadcasters have relied on the linear schedule as the litmus test for content demand – the moment in our daily lives when most people are likely to be available to watch TV and (importantly) connect with others, rather than serving up content based on our personal digital ‘data exhausts’. And as a result, I would argue, broadening their audiences’ worldview.
Who’d have thought I’d have been head over heels with The Killing on BBC 4?
Who’d have thought my Nan would have been into Being Human?
Who’d have thought my little sister would have been in creases at The Inbetweeners?
Who’d have thought University Challenge would be appointment to view TV for my 15 year old cousin?
It will be important for broadcasters not to over-manage the incredible choice of content that will become available to viewers – content that won’t just be coming from traditional TV brands too. Broadcasters in my opinion should continue to attempt to broaden our world-view by delighting and surprising us on topics and ideas that we love but often didn’t expect we would – revelling in the serendipity that a mass medium can offer people. This means taking viewers on a journey, outside of our ‘filter bubble’ or beyond content recommendations generated by algorithms. This in my mind is the role for channel brands in an age of content overload. Taking us to a place somewhere we’ve never been before or,better still, even knew existed and connecting us all through these new stories.
2013: The year serendipity defeats the algorithm in TV land? Part One.
Just had this posted on my employer’s blog. Copy and pasted here. Thoughts welcome.
In the next two blog posts, I’m going to try and explore two cultural trends that are informing big strategic shifts in the way TV is produced, distributed, navigated and found.
In one corner, we’ve got the world of algorithms. Where clever bits of code can choose our friends, inform our governments and serve up TV recommendations based on our previous behaviour. In the other, we have the world of serendipity. Where we stumble on things we like inadvertently, where hunches pervade and TV is recommended based on the time of day it is.
Which one will win? How are they informing each other? And what does this all mean for the world of TV?
THE ART OF ALGORITHMS
We live in an increasingly connected world. Greater connectivity has resulted in more choice. Which, on the face of it, is a good thing. Yet many argue, like psychologist Barry Schwartz in his book ‘The Paradox of Choice’ that actually, too much choice can be counterproductive to a point at which it can be paralysing.
Historically the role of channel brands has been to serve up content. When there were only three channels to get your TV fix from, the barriers to entry were too great for anyone else to reach audiences of any scale, thus a natural cartel was formed, meaning viewers never really had that much choice. The role of the channel was primarily a distributor.
Along came satellite and digital distribution and the emphasis of the role of channel brands changed as the means of distribution allowed more entrants into the TV market. This meant the role of channel brands changed from being distributors of content to ‘curators’ of content, helping us manage the overwhelming choice of TV programmes that we were now exposed to.
The recent rebrand of ITV and the refocus on the channel’s relationship with audiences as the curator of content reflects this shift. As their Marketing Director Rufus Radcliffe said: “The rebrand is about cementing a relationship in viewers’ minds with the shows they love and the ITV brand”.
WHAT TO WATCH?
But as TV becomes connected and we increasingly litter our homes and lives with screens, the question “what do you want to watch?” becomes even tougher to answer. There is an interesting tension now brewing in the TV industry – to what extent should broadcasters look to replicate the digital success stories of hyper-targeted, algorithmically-led organisations like Google and Amazon to help navigate audiences through the vast array of content they are now served up?
Kevin Slavin, founder of a social TV co-viewing experience called Starling, delivered a fascinatingTED talk where he argued that we’re living in a world designed for and increasingly controlled by algorithms. This is increasingly evident in the world of TV. In August this year at the Edinburgh TV Festival, Netflix’s Ted Sarandos spoke of the taste-based algorithms his company is deploying, which are used to inform editorial decision- making in the hope of increasing the hits and reducing the misses of Netflix commissions.
But are ever-pervading algorithms a good thing for the TV industry and the broader culture at large in which stories told through TV play a hugely influential role?
Algorithms are brilliant at creating relevancy in our lives. They do a large portion of the sifting and filtering for us.
As we increasingly acknowledge though, it’s a two way street – we give up control of our personal data in return for the benefits of doing so; removing randomness and increasing relevancy. Ben Hammersley, former Wired Editor and all round digital big-brain, gave a speech earlier in the year to the IAAC. In his speech he discussed his view on “the renegotiation of the social contract because of the internet and the data on it”. He argues, “We understand the value of our data, we have done the sums and we judged ourselves in profit. If advertisers want to know my preferred brand of whisky, or be allowed access to my travel schedule, and these disclosures get me Facebook for free, with all its associated social utility and delights, then fine. Fair play. We sell our data in return for a better world, and we do understand what we’re doing”.
In the next post, I’ll go on to explore the downsides and the benefits of a world less influenced by code and logic. In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts – are you looking forward to or already enjoying a personalised TV viewing experience or do you feel like you’re missing out in any way? Are we on an inevitable trajectory of a logically created culture?
Whirledge’s Weekly #3
A weekly round up of stuff found down the back of the internet…
**Tech**
Just how do some tech companies make money?
Have a look inside where the internet is kept – Google’s data centre
**Tele**
Why MTV’s new show is probably cursed
Netflix sneaks in some second screen functionality
How Social TV is changing in Europe
**Sell Sell Sell**
A free tool from Google called the Consumer Barometer provides data on how consumers research and buy products
Win an extra hour in the day courtesy of Pepsi
Some great industrial designers to follow
What is digital strategy? From BBH
**Random**
Catch the ice dude
Hacks for life
Whirledge’s Weekly #2
**TECH**
What will the net look like in 2020?
A trackable suitcase automatically follows its owner.
**TELE**
What does Social TV mean for broadcasters, producers and start ups? A MIP panel discusses.
Are ITV revenues at risk from second screen company Zeebox?
But is social tele failing before its even taken off?
Nah. We ain’t seen nothing yet.
The future of story-telling is participation?
**ADS**
A live frozen moment recreated on Venice Beach
Geek out on planning in 2013.
What is an inventionist?
**RANDOM**
The most common tricks by dumb people to look smart. (I use Quora.)
Super smart. Making better use of the ’404′ page by posting photos of missing children.
Whirledge’s weekly #1
Is all TV social?
A few months ago I wrote a presentation looking at the state of ‘dual screening’ for a TV industry conflab. In reality, the interesting bit is probably the point of view on what types of TV genres work best in a world of shared attention.
I then blogged about it for Red Bee.
And now, for your delight, sweating these slides like never before, here it is again. Comments most welcome.
“Interactivity has its place but you don’t want to overdo it – shows like Sherlock and Frozen Planet on the BBC are very intense for the viewer and need people not to be distracted.”
So says John Tate, the BBC’s director of policy and strategy on the relationship between social media and TV.
The idea of TV viewers ‘second screening’ has been heavily debated within the industry over the last 18 months.
But just because we can, does it mean we should?
This area is certainly worth investigating and raises the question – when should TV content creators augment their linear broadcast with the second screen and when should they not?
I suggest it depends on three factors:
1. AUDIENCE ATTENTION:
But there is an elephant in the room – not all content asks for the same level of attention.
For years TV audience attention has been shared with other tasks – eating dinner, reading a book, ironing, cooking etc. Only now, as people spend an increasing amount of time with a connected device where behaviour can be tracked, are we starting to quantify what ‘shared attention’ looks like.
The amount of attention required to enjoy TV depends on the nature of the show.
Some genres such as dramas anticipate 100% focus from the audience – miss ten seconds while you send a text and it could ruin the entire show as you missed a pivotal moment. Compare this to other types of programming formats such as factual entertainment, which many argue, are social by design – they have natural pauses in the narrative which act as signposts for anyone whose attention is floating.
For example, on The X Factor, the week’s VT recap for each contestant is always played just prior to each live performance. Essentially, unlike dramas, your attention may wander for five minutes but you can still enjoy the rest of the programme because of how the format is designed.
2. AUDIENCE FAMILIARITY:
If the audience is very familiar with the narrative of a story, there is a greater propensity for audience’s attention to wander off-screen. Genres where the narrative has been created via the format like ‘Secret Millionaire’, ‘Come Dine with Me’ and ‘Million Pound Drop’ play to a formula which the viewer subscribes to. For example, the millionaire will be revealed at the end of the show, the contestants cook to win money etc.
In many instances, getting across the format of the show is how these types of shows are marketed.
However, an audience usually lacks any familiarity with the ebb and flow of a drama because they are not written to a format formula – dramas are built on making sure the audience stays transfixed to the plot by keeping the audience guessing and wanting more information about the characters and plot.
3. A NARRATIVE’S WORLD:
Finally, if a TV format exists within a closed, fictional world, a second screen experience is in danger of bursting the fictional bubble.
There have been a few attempts at fictional characters tweeting alongside the show for instance but I’m not sure they add much to the overall experience. Often the reason people watch fiction is to enter into this closed world for a sense of escapism.
However, if the content’s narrative operates in the open, real world, like a football game whose resulting story impacts on the bigger narrative of the season, this presents an opportunity for a second screen experience to underpin the importance of the narrative you’re watching.
Using this model, we can start to explore the effective ways to integrate social with TV content. As an example, let’s consider Sky Sport’s F1 coverage against each of the above factors.
Attention: F1 by nature requires your attention at the start and end of the race but due to the repetitive nature and the (relatively predictable) peaks and troughs in the drama, you can dip in and out. The race tends to take the ‘back seat’ once underway and other stories come to the fore.
Familiarity: There is a great deal of audience familiarity with what is about to happen in the story – one driver will win after 70 odd laps around a race track.
Context: The race operates in the real, open world: this means the story you’re watching unfold, impacts on other stories outside of the linear narrative. For example, current drivers standings, how are the new tyre compounds working, who was to blame for the pile-up at turn four. Who has pitted twice etc…
The Sky second screen app keeps viewers gripped throughout by providing on-going stories created via data, analysis, commentary, new camera angles etc all created as by-product of the linear ‘open’ story.
And of course, all these sub-stories make up the shareable moments that people want to talk about on social platforms – people share moments, scenes, stories, reactions, they don’t share ‘programmes’.
The above criteria for approaching a second screen strategy on a programme-by-programme basis is built under the presumption you’re creating a synchronous experience with the live play out of the show.
However, we were able to create an experience for FX UK’s ‘The Walking Dead’ by focusing on the user interaction pre and post show with a very light-touch sync mechanic during the show.
So is all TV social? Well, I’d argue that whilst Tv continues to be made and commissioned as it is, some formats are simply more social by design than others.
Update: We won a Cannes Bronze for The Walking Dead. Tidy.
The Participation Choice
It’s interesting isn’t it, participation?
As Patricia McDonald over at Planning for High Heels points out, participation is a bit of a marketing preoccupation.
It’s often the solution to many a brief. Rightly or wrongly.
Because we’re told,”we all do it. The behaviour is growing. It’s mainstream. It’s easy. All demographics are at it. It’s the rule, not the exception”.
So take a look at this video from Holly Goodier, head of planning at BBC Future Media, presenting some research conducted by her team on how the UK’s population participates online. By digital participation, the BBC have defined it as:
Creating and contributing online so that others can see
(Unpacking that slightly – ‘others’being – everyone from sharing a tweet with the whole world to sharing a link with your best mate via email and ‘creating and contributing’ – from a Facebook ‘like’, writing a book on Amazon, to flogging your old BBQ with an online ad on Gumtree or uploading photos and creating and maintaining a blog).
The analysis seems to suggest that there are a lot more people ‘participating’ than the previously mooted 10% the 1-9-90 rule had perhaps allowed for.
(For the record, I wasn’t involved in the research and I have no idea if the figures reported are claimed/ observed behaviours).
In the post, Holly highlights six themes. I want to comment on one:
Digital participation now is best characterised through the lens of choice. These are the decisions we take about whether, when, with whom and around what, we will participate. Because participation is now much more about who we are, than what we have, or our digital skill.
In other words, it is your character – your attitudes, beliefs and interests which will determine to what extent you participate (if at all) online. There are no demographic skews, there are no early adopters or laggards. There are no shortcuts. The tools are accessible to all and it has never been easier to ‘participate’.
So we’ve hit a UK saturation point in the internet’s evolution. We can. But still, not all, do.
What I find bemusing knowing this is the constant bombardment from marketing agencies to prospective clients on how they will enable potential and existing customers to ‘take part’/ ‘join in’/ ‘engage’ with a brand when clearly not everyone is motivated to do so. Moreover, what chance does an ad campaign have when they barely participate with those they already have a relationship with (remember Brian). Sure, you may come to the conclusion after some thorough network analysis that an appropriate strategy is to propagate a message through those that do participate to reach those that don’t (thereby jumping on the Facebook gravy train and also the lazy, post rationalised answer for selling an agency’s ‘social media services’) but again, we shouldn’t start with the solution.
Perhaps this is brought about by considering the beliefs, attitudes and interests of someone who works in advertising and particularly those who take to digital media to espouse how the world of communication is changing. More likely than not, they sit within the 17% ‘intense’ online participants – show me a digital agency and I’ll show you their team’s online exhaust. The point being their own attitude to digital technology informs their belief on how marketing should now work.
But as Holly’s research demonstrates, not everyone has the same attitudes to online participation. To suggest that your agency’s social media team is representative for the population at large is wrong. Most people simply aren’t as narcissistic (nor perhaps incentivised) to participate in the same way the digital marketing community are.
So perhaps, a return to basics is in order to start to ask better questions. If 77% of the online population are participating in some way, what motivates them to do so? And if your audience sit within the 23% who don’t participate, how should you be presenting your message to them? Because, the answer shouldn’t start with getting them to participate.
