Date: February 24, 2003 -- UK-based Celador is the company behind "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" and a number of other successful formats. It just launched an interactive version of "Millionaire," following an agreement between BSkyB and the UK's largest commercial broadcaster, the Independent Television Network ("ITV"), that will see the ITV network supporting interactivity on all 3 of its channels on SkyDigital. Bruce Vandenberg, who heads up Celador's interactive ventures, recently spoke to [itvt]'s Tracy Swedlow about the significance of the launch of the interactive version of "Millionaire," about his philosophy that interactive TV should "proceed from" programming content, about current and future trends in interactive-TV-enabled programming, about how interactivity can rejuvenate existing content, about how advertisers need to change their techniques in a PVR-enabled TV universe, and more.

[itvt]: You are head of digital at Celador. What does your job involve?

Vandenberg: I look after the licensing and implementation of our brands on all digital platforms. So, Internet, wireless, ITV, in-flight entertainment, personal digital assistants--anything that is digital and interactive, I'm responsible for.

[itvt]: What do you think is the significance of the launch of an interactive-TV-enabled version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" on the ITV network?

Vandenberg: I think it is an important milestone in the development of the UK market. While it's already true that the UK is the most advanced market in terms of prevalence of DTV, being able to address more than 8 1/2 million homes with an interactive application for a program as strong as "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" sends the message that interactive TV is now really a commercial opportunity. It's also very important for the ITV network: they have been behind in terms of interactive TV, due to a number of reasons, but primarily because they didn't have an interactive carriage deal with Sky. This will be their first major interactive proposition that's gone out in the marketplace.

[itvt]: Presumably, Celador has plans to roll out interactive-TV-enabled programming beyond "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"

Vandenberg: Well, we are looking all the time at how we can make brilliant TV programming and how we can have interactivity at the core of it. We try to implement interactivity in such a way that it isn't interactivity for interactivity's sake, but is core to the program values and the entertainment experience. We were very lucky with "Millionaire," in terms of how brilliant a program it is and how well it has done. It is now in 105 countries…

[itvt]: As a linear-TV product, correct?

Vandenberg: Yes. But the mechanics of "Millionaire" are reasonably simple, which allows us to do a variety of things based on it: like interactive TV, Internet products, wireless products, and so on. So when you couple the simplicity of the mechanics of the show with the fact that many millions of people in a number of countries are familiar with the brand and how it works, there is no consumer education problem when it comes to extending the "Millionaire" brand to other technologies. So it was very easy to retrofit "Millionaire" for interactivity: the format fits very well. But now, going forward, we are looking at interactivity as a core part of our programming. Of course, we're not interested in interactivity just for its own sake. We believe that TV programs, first and foremost, need to be entertaining, and that the interactivity should be subordinate to that goal, not the other way around. Lots of companies are creating shows purely out of an interactive proposition; but what you find with such shows is that they're going to be limited in the audience that they appeal to. It's true that the audience that understands interactivity and uses it--early adopters and first converts--is growing significantly. But when you're seeking to address a program to 8 or 9 million people in prime time, a lot of those people will not immediately be inclined to interact with the show. If it is just too complicated, or too technical, or too interactive, then often you lose that element of entertainment. We are very focused on format, on getting the program right; but where we can--and where it makes sense--we will use interactivity to enhance the TV experience.

[itvt]: For what kind of programming does interactivity "make sense"?

Vandenberg: A lot of shows at the moment offer voting-type applications: shows like "Idol," "Big Brother," and "Survivor" that are reality-based. Those kinds of shows are definitely appropriate for interactivity. However, I don't think they use interactivity to its full potential. If you take a show like "Walking with Beasts" from the BBC, it uses interactivity in order to deliver a richer programming experience. So I think the primary goal is to ensure that the interactivity proceeds from and adds value to the content of the show. How interactivity is implemented should follow from the programming itself: if you look at a lot of the interactivity associated with sports programming, for example, it is implemented in a way that is functional and useful. It provides viewers with a choice of camera angles, courses, games, statistical information, etc. On the other hand, the interactivity associated with shows like "Millionaire" is not about usefulness or functionality. It's about extending the entertainment experience.

[itvt]: Could you explain a little further how and why you think interactivity should proceed from a program's content?

Vandenberg: For example, it is often very difficult to get all the content you want into the broadcast show. Interactivity offers you a number of different channels to get content to the user base. If you look at CBS's "Crime Scene Investigation" and the way they give information about forensics and why fingerprints are so important and so on, this is useful information that can enhance the broadcast content. I also think that fatigue will set in with simple, generic interactivity such as voting. I think the novelty will wear off, and, in fact, some high-profile shows are already having problems with this. People will tire of interactivity, unless it is original and has a close affinity with the content of a program.

[itvt]: What kinds of trends are you currently seeing in ITV-enabled programming?

Vandenberg: At the moment, there is a definite tendency on the part of broadcasters to want to do things live for some reason. Live programming has always been more expensive and, of course, somewhat more risky. Nevertheless, there is a definite push for live--with even established programs like "Blind Date" doing it--and people have been experimenting with retrofitting interactivity for these live shows, retrofitting voting, and seeing how it works.

[itvt]: This trend is taking place primarily in the UK, right?

Vandenberg: Yes, in the UK.

[itvt]: Why do you think this is?

Vandenberg: I think it is partly because there is a bit of a frenzy over phone-based interactivity and voting at the moment. Any big show that is live and generates a lot of audience participation in terms of voting seems to be the hot flavor right now. It is also, I think, because the technology that enables live voting is starting to establish itself as usable and cost-effective. And, because of that, there is more room for experimentation. Of course, this trend will inevitably change.

[itvt]: What will cause it to change?

Vandenberg: The minute the audience doesn't support it, in terms of generating significant volumes of votes or ratings, then it is going to wane. If you look at the recent quiz-show boom, which was led by "Millionaire" and resulted in "The Weakest Link," "Greed," and a variety of other shows, everybody eventually got tired of the genre and it slowed right down. I think the same phenomenon is now happening with talent shows: "Pop Stars" was big in the UK and some territories in Europe; "Pop Idol" went off the scale in both the UK and America; and "Pop Idol II" will be airing here soon; there's also "Fame Academy." So there are lots of different programs that all offer basically the same type of content, and I think it will all wind down before long. The same goes for the reality-TV phenomenon: shows like "Big Brother" and "Temptation Island" are now starting to wane in terms of their ratings, and also in terms of the number of people that are responding to their interactive features.

[itvt]: What's coming next, in your opinion?

Vandenberg: Well, that is the million-dollar question. Personally, I think we are in a global state of tough economic times, pending wars and all those types of things, so I think there is definitely…I think people want to feel good about humanity and they want to feel good about themselves. So stories or programs that highlight humanity, that are entertaining in an uplifting way, are, I think, going to become popular. I think that people are tired of watching other people at the moment.

[itvt]: But don't programs that are designed to make you feel good about humanity necessitate watching other people?

Vandenberg: When I say that people are tired of watching people, I mean that they're tired of, for example, watching people stuck in a house for 12 weeks. I think people are looking for human stories that are uplifting, real and unique, rather than ones that take place in an artificial environment.

[itvt]: Yet dating shows seem to be popular in both the UK and the US right now.

Vandenberg: Absolutely. Dating shows are big right now, but this, I think, is because they span both the current and the coming trend. You can still do voting around the dating, and there is also the human element of how people get on, how they choose each other, and so on. We have actually just secured the rights for a new dating show called "Boys and Girls." It has already been commissioned in America.

[itvt]: What is it about?

Vandenberg: It is a massive, live dating show: 100 boys, 100 girls, 100 grand is the idea. It ends with a couple going on a blind date and blowing £100,000. The show is made by UM TV, Chris Evan's production company.

[itvt]: Will there be any interactivity associated with this show?

Vandenberg: Yes. Here in the UK, there will be the opportunity for the viewing audience to vote on whether or not the winner from the previous week gets to keep the winnings--the 100 grand--that they have spent. If not, all that he or she has bought gets returned to the store. The interactivity will be extended to SMS and other platforms in the future.

[itvt]: Do you think that interactivity is a useful tool for keeping an existing show fresh?

Vandenberg: Yes, absolutely. If you look at "Millionaire," for example, when it launched, it was very, very successful and broke records in most countries. Eventually, though, it settled down--though it usually remained one of the top 5 or 10 shows. But every time we introduced a new element--for example, allowing people to become contestants via SMS--it reinvigorated the show and brought the ratings back. I think interactivity does the same thing: our ratings grew by almost 600% when we launched interactivity on ITV 2. And I expect to see the same thing happen on ITV1: our focus groups have led us to believe that people will be more inclined to make an appointment-to-view with "Millionaire," now that they can play along with it. So I definitely believe that interactivity can help an existing program maintain itself and reestablish itself.

[itvt]: What SMS elements have you introduced into the show?

Vandenberg: We now have a number of SMS products associated with "Millionaire." You can get onto the show by using SMS as opposed to just ringing up. You will soon also be able to play along with the show, simultaneously as it is being broadcast. And you can play "Millionaire" before the show starts: you can use your mobile to answer some of the questions that will be asked on the show.

[itvt]: How do you think your audience will respond to mobile-phone-based interactivity as opposed to remote-control-based interactivity?

Vandenberg: That is a difficult question. Mobile phones are ubiquitous and they are very personal devices. People are used to them, they carry them around with them all day. So when it comes to doing something with their phone, they are very comfortable doing it. The number of people who are comfortable using their mobile phone for interactivity is, at least initially, going to be much higher than the number of people who are comfortable using their remote. On the other hand, I think our red-button application is much more enjoyable to play, because it has audio/visual prompts. The experience is somehow closer to the experience of the broadcast itself. You are interacting with the host. You can see in real time whether you are beating the contestant or not. You can achieve that to some extent with SMS, but it is not as tangible.

[itvt]: Can you provide usage statistics for your SMS-based products?

Vandenberg: Well, the SMS app that allows you to play along with the show won't be launched until the spring. However, our stand-alone game has been running for a number of months, and it has generated hundreds and hundreds of millions of SMS messages.

[itvt]: What would you say is the significance of PVR technology? How do you think its availability will affect programming going forward?

Vandenberg: Well, in many countries now, you've got such a multichannel environment that mainstream audiences have started to fragment across the multitude of channels that are being offered. A device as user-friendly as Sky+ is certainly going to make it considerably easier for viewers to handle this multichannel environment. As for what effect PVR technology is going to have on programming, I think you're going to see program branding becoming increasingly important, if viewers are less reliant on networks' schedules to find the programming they want to watch. Viewers are going to decide what they want to watch when they want to watch it, and, if that's the case, it's going to be the old advertising argument of "brand, brand, brand." Obviously, advertisers will also be affected: I think you'll see quite a big change in the way programming is funded, in the way that brands get involved with television programming, and in the way advertisers leverage programming investments to get exposure for their brands.

[itvt]: How do you think advertisers can best adapt to a TV universe where PVR/DVR technology, which in theory allows viewers to avoid watching TV commercials altogether, is prevalent? Through product placement?

Vandenberg: Product and brand placement in television is something that differs from market to market. I know for certain that you can "get away with murder" in the States compared to the heavily regulated environment in the UK. Increasingly we are seeing brands get closer to shows and their content by doing a number of tactically clever things. Barter deals have become more popular in Europe, for example, and I would expect that trend to continue.

There are two key things I believe advertisers can do in the near-to-medium future: 1) Really challenge their creative teams to make the adverts themselves entertaining and worth watching. Research has shown that consumers' propensity to remember and re-identify a brand is higher when the advertising for the brand is funny or entertaining. Clearly this is not going to apply to all brands or to all of the messages that advertisers wish to convey, but it will certainly help. 2) Creating an affinity between their brand and the brand or genre of a show will start to create an identity that the audience can relate to, whilst watching the show or away from that environment (where it would count most). I am a user of Sky +, and can say that it is probably a 65/35 mix in favor of watching the adverts when I use the service, simply because of the age-old problem that the effort and time taken to find the remote, push fast-forward, and then stop in time for the next segment of the show is probably going to take as long as it will to watch the ads. And ads still also provide that key quick-break to go to the loo or pop the kettle on.

Further consideration should also be given to the fact that one can assume that anyone using PVR/DVR technology will, by virtue of the fact that they have the technology in their home, be reasonably astute. There will then be an opportunity for brands to exploit other technologies in the home, such as ITV, to deliver interactive ads or to wrap promotions, and particularly loyalty-driven schemes, around their adverts.

[itvt]: To what extent do you think interactivity is an important contributor to a program's branding? Will it become more important going forward?

Vandenberg: That's a difficult question. I suppose one could ask whether a show like "Popstars" would be so popular without the voting? I would say it probably would, simply because it's good television. I think the voting is an important element of the program, but I still think it would be a very strong brand even without it. Will interactivity play a more important role in programming going forward? To some degree yes, and to some degree no. There will be elements of the audience--and most likely these will be from the younger generation--who are particularly technologically astute, have a desire to interact, and prefer to get information in a piecemeal manner from a number of different sources: these audience elements will assimilate themselves to brands associated with interactivity. At the same time, there will be other elements of the audience that just aren't interested in all that stuff, and would prefer to veg out on the couch and receive really good entertainment content. So, while I think that interactivity will bring about shifts within current TV business models, and that it will allow you to extract further commercial opportunities from TV programming, I don't think it's going to bring about a massive sea change in the nature of television in the near future. I believe it will be many, many years before that happens.

[itvt]: Does Celador now think about incorporating interactivity into its shows from their conception?

Vandenberg: Absolutely. But always on the basis of 1) trying to create brilliant entertainment content, and 2) wanting to use interactivity to make that content float, rather than just saying, "If it doesn't have a voting application or some other form of interactivity, it's not going to be commissioned." The goal is to come up with content that's unique, novel, and entertaining, rather than be driven by an interactive agenda. Increasingly, we are seeing people who come to us and say, for example, "This is an Internet product that will make a great television show." Yet the very reason they are talking to people like us is because they realize that it's not that easy to take an interactive concept that's great on another platform and make a television show out of it. Frankly, it's a lot easier to make a great television program and put interactivity into it. Nevertheless, whenever we start creating a program concept, we do look at interactivity and consider what we can do with the technology currently available to us.

[itvt]: What technological challenges are you facing as you start to roll out more ITV-enabled programming?

Vandenberg: Well, first of all, the differences in capabilities between the various set-top boxes in the field and the differences in playout times between the satellite, digital terrestrial and cable platforms are so massive it beggars belief. The digital satellite signal has a bigger delay than, say, the digital terrestrial signal, and so on. Trying to synchronize the interactivity, synchronize the audience involvement, if you like, becomes a challenging prospect. Then, to my mind, anything that really allows an audience to participate is going to have to do so on a large scale. Which means you need the infrastructure to be able to bring what all those users are doing or saying via your ITV application back to where it can be processed. You need a substantial response network.

[itvt]: What response network are you using?

Vandenberg: With our Sky application, you can use Sky's return path. In DTT and cable environments, where there's currently no built-in return path, you can respond by ringing a premium phone number to register your scores and so forth.

[itvt]: Are you happy with the response so far to the ITV-enabled version of "Millionaire"?

Vandenberg: Yes, absolutely. It's amazing how many people love interacting with it on all the available platforms.

[itvt]: What's in store for "Millionaire" in the future?

Vandenberg: We're looking at hotels. We have it live on some aircraft already. There's definitely an interactive in-flight entertainment proposition. We're also looking at big corporate events, say, on a cruise ship, where you could go and play a game of "Millionaire" in the theater.

[itvt]: Would all these new projects offer some form of interactivity?

Vandenberg: Probably. We always consider it.

***



Copyright 1998 - 2004 [itvt] | Swedlow. All rights reserved