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.

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?

**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

The Onion takes the piss out of TED talks

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.

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.

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.

A fundamental component which drives what they do (or did – they are in a period of ‘rest’) is their theory on how systems change.

As one system culminates and starts to collapse, isolated alternatives slowly begin to arise and give way to the new

How Berkana describe what they actually do based on this insight around systems change is fascinating and I think there is a real opportunity for the ad industry to borrow from this model (perhaps rather crassly given the worthiness of the Berkana Institute’s mission and I’m repurposing for the ad industry…)

In the video Deborah in the video describes, the institue does four things to facilitate change:

1. Name… whilst many pioneers work on problems in isolation, they may be unaware that they are part of a global community with shared values, problems, ambitions etc So the Institute looks to name the good work that these pockets of pioneers are doing to highlight the importance of their work on the global stage

2. Connect… Berkana create the spaces,both virtual and real for the exchange of ideas to provide clarity of thought and motivation for the pioneers.

3. Nourish… create the conditions and resources that enable the sharing of wisdom and building of relationships for the pioneers to progress.

4. Illuminate… putting the spotlight on the pioneers to enable others to join in and get behind their efforts

But what I found most interesting was their role in providing ‘hospice’ for the ‘dying systems’ – the compassion for the ideas and people that are failing. Because when you want the system to change,  you also need to offer a lifeboat for the people from the old system to participate in the new.

Much of the doom-mongering dialogue in the ad industry is based on this theory of systems change. Old network monolith agencies in need of hospice versus the new, young, hotshop, digital, ‘agile’ agencies that are coalescing to create the new order and offering the path of future advertising enlightenment – often offering up a new way to create sustainable demand and economic growth (if growth is the answer – but that’s another blog post).

Having worked in both large and small agencies, I think there is a definite opportunity for an industry body to assume the roles of the Berkana Institute. This would accelerate the systemic change the industry needs right now. Some bodies will claim they are already doing this but what I don’t see much of is ‘hospicing’. Many of us are all too quick to champion the pioneers and alternative ways of doing things but to really accelerate the systemic change required across the industry (whether that system change is to address the talent shortage, agency renumeration models, retention of IP, moving from a post-industrial economic growth driven model etc etc) we have to learn to bridge the gap between the stability and robustness offered by the network agencies (the global ad guys who have the ear of Fortune 100 CEOs) and the new systems of thinking that are forming outside of the established relationships.

Which leads me to my final thought – right now, where is the better place to be a catalyst for changing the advertising system? Do you think it’s better to be on the inside, within a global network agency – the established system – leading the global strategic conversations and influencing multi-billion dollar corporations from the ‘inside’, or on the outside of the established system, riding the wave of Moore’s Law, working on truly innovative projects with like minded people at a pace and impact that has the potential to disrupt the old system and force externally. Initiatives like Alex Bogusky’s Common spring to mind where he left his agency to start his movement free of the shackles placed on him by the old system. Or Damon Collins and Richard Exon who recently launched their new venture ‘Joint’ after leaving Y&R/RKCR.

I’m sure there is no right answer but would be interested to know your thoughts. And if this idea of how systems change can be applied to the ad industry what is the likely dominant new system that is going to emerge?

We started wondering… “where’s the story?” “Is this content or just a long ad?” etc etc

But it’s interesting isn’t it… The more I think about this, the more I think we need to carefully think about how we define ‘content’ because it’s a bloody minefield…

And well they’ve got 13 million views in a little under a week so they must be doing something that is worth taking a look under the bonnet for…

W+K’s response to the lack of a clear story may be something along the lines of this recent quote from FastCo mag:

W+K London head of interactive and innovation Graeme Douglas explains: “Instead of making a big ad for TV then putting together a bolt-on interactive version, what we have done is make a interactive film and experience, then created an edit for TV. That’s a fundamental shift.”
 

I agree that you need to think about the context your content sits in (is this now called comms/digital/engagement planning?)… In this instance, Nike have created something for Youtube first and foremost. They’ve developed an understanding of audience behaviour on this particular platform and developed the offering accordingly…

At Red Bee, we talk a lot about content.

For example, the three ‘c’s of all good stories – catalyst, conflict, conclusion. It’s a well trodden formula for making solid TV shows.

But this type of content creation was built for a linear medium. Namely TV.

When we as an industry talk about branded content, we are largely talking about using the interweb as our distribution channel because the barriers to entry via any other means are too high (print/ TV channel etc)…

The context in which people consume stuff on this medium is different to linear distribution platforms. People expect to be able to interact with ‘things’ on the internet  (if they want to).

That’s not to say EVERYTHING on the net should be interactive, but when an audience has grown up used to influencing or interacting with the ‘thing’ a brand has put out into the world, and the thing just so happens to be video, perhaps it makes sense to rewrite some of these rules that were written for a linear medium?

And because lot’s of TV types talk about the power of story-telling et al, I think you then get into a discussion about what is a ‘story’ and can you distinguish it from ‘narrative’….?

Some hints from games designers.

Games designers and commentators (well some of them anyway), have long held the belief that games are not stories. That’s not to say that games can’t be good at telling stories, more over that a good game doesn’t necessarily need to have a good story but it does need to have some kind of narrative.

Tetris does not have a story. Whichever way you cook it. Neither does Angry Birds. Nor Pong. But all have narratives.

So what’s a narrative then?

Well I think it’s the path that audience attention follows that leads to a series of events/experiences/emotions for the intended audience as a direct result of the artefact you’ve put out to the world.

I.e. You can play a game and feel happy about getting the new ‘high score’. Yet the story of the game hasn’t changed. You’re still just building and knocking down walls in Tetris etc.
(In fact this is how lot’s of print ads work… they let you, the viewer, take on the narrative through powerful semiotic and subconscious persuasion that the creative has sparked within you – the narrative becomes whatever you choose it to be).

So what’s interesting about games is that the narrative is often not written in the ‘story’ that is presented on-screen. It is not dictated by the author/ screen writer/ director like it is in TV content. For example, ‘tension’ created by a game, is often created in the players head. Games present players with choices, dilemmas, immersion that create tension and excitement. Games can do this because a game player is an active participant. A TV viewer is traditionally passive so content is created with this in mind… it does a lot of the legwork so you don’t have to.

Another way of looking at it is game players have ‘agency’ – a philosophical tennant that illustrates the amount of change a person can have in a particular world. What’s happening on screen can be just a couple of pixels moving in a predictable fashion. Yet this still forms a narrative through the agency that the player has created for themselves with the help of the game (and the designer’s smart use of behavioural economics of course too).

Finally, what games are brilliant at is making the specific ‘mechanic’ fun and addictive. The catapulting of a weird bird with your fingers into a bunch of weird alien thingys in Angry Bird, the satisfaction of another block that fits in Tetris etc. In the Nike instance, the finding of and transportation through the ‘tunnels’ to unlock more content. Again what’s interesting is that I take delight in this ‘mechanic’ yet all I’m doing is clicking on the video (there’s no skill to it).

All these things can be incorporated into defining what ‘content’ is on the web I’m sure - separating narrative from story, introducing agency, and defining an addictive mechanic.

I’m not sure if this post is at all helpful. It’s a bit of a stream of consciousness really. I think ad agency types could learn from games developers certainly. And a lot already are. But I think there are a lot of people who work within TV who have perfected the craft of linear story-telling and are happy to leave it at that. I know I sound a bit “transmedia 2009 darling” but I can’t help but think we’re still a million miles away from creating true stories (whether branded content, gamified tele, dual screen – social media strategies or whatever we call it) that can live and grow in an interactive world. And as the fundamental definition of what a TV screen changes over the next decade, I’d like to see more experimentation coming out of the indie and broadcaster communities.

What’s your favourite TV show right now? What show do you absolutely make an appointment to watch? Which show do you literally hate to miss?

We talk about all TV shows we flog at Red Bee being ‘appointment to view’ tele but rarely do people ACTUALLY make an ‘appointment’ to view. TV is good. But it’s rarely that good.

It’s a common misconception within marketing departments – that people give a shit about brands. Particularly so for TV channel brands where the a) vast majority of TV is consumed really in a rather joyously passive manner (which in reality is actually what makes TV so wide -spread in its appeal… but that’s a whole other blog post) and b) the primary relationship amongst viewers is with the programme brand, not the channel’s. So is there a gap in the market for a programme recommendation engine that invites people to share recommendations they feel strongly about – tele that deserves your recommendation?

The inspiration for this thought came from a new music service called ‘This is my Jam’ which I stumbled across last week.
This is My Jam aims to answer the question “What’s your favorite song right now?” In their words, “Not any old track, but THAT song; the one that’s on repeat, the one you can’t get out of your head today, the one worth shouting about.” It’s a great little site and its appeal for me lies in the knowledge that other users have very carefully considered what it is they want to share and recommend with you because your ‘Jam’ (your song choice) is only playable for one week or until you select a new one – your ‘jam’ needs some thought.

The release of this new service is timely. As ‘check-ins’/’likes’/’watched’ etc via Facebook or third party apps like GetGlue become ever more omnipresent in our world, sites like ‘This is my Jam’ tap into a new insight – that people are more than happy to share their media consumption habits (through ‘liking’ stuff etc) but this does not necessarily constitute an act of recommendation anymore. For two reasons;

1. The diminishing value of a Facebook ‘like’. I’m watching/ liking/ checking in to… Well, isn’t telling someone your ‘liking’ something an act of recommendation? Perhaps it is in the real world, but the value of a Facebook ‘like’ isn’t quite as strong as marketers might hope for. In one study cited in a recent article by WOM research specialists Keller fay which looked at the top 200 brand pages over a six week period last October, only a very small number of fans –1.3% according to the study–engaged with the fan pages during the course of a week.  And many of these are the result of an initial “like.”  Among those who have already liked the brand in the past, engagement drops to a mere 0.45%. Meanwhile another study from emarketer revealed the vast majority of us are far more mercenary in our motivations for ‘liking’ something on Facebook in that we do it in the hope of bagging freebies in return.

2. ‘Liking’ something is more often than not a badging exercise born out of human being’s innate ‘status anxiety’. In his book of the same name, Alain De Botton discusses the desire of people in modern society to ‘climb the social ladder’. What the popularity of networks like Facebook has created is an increased visibility amongst our peers – (the Telegraph reported the average 22 year old has over 1000 Facebook friends) and that means that stuff that we ‘like’ on Facebook is actually simply a proxy for what we think we should ‘like’ in front of others.

So we need new ways of imbuing value in our online recommendations. With TV programming being such a big catalyst for conversations online, is there room for a new system of TV content recommendation? One that puts the emphasis back on your personal, considered recommendation rather than personal, flippant consumption? Looking forward to your thoughts…