EventReview

Amsterdam, The Netherlands
September 12-16, 2002

[itvt] Issue 4.74 Part 2 10/7/02

By Maurice Jacobsen for [itvt]

There are not a great number of individuals working independently to create interactive television. And if one narrows the field to those working on interactive news and documentary projects, all of us could probably all fit in one small room.

So I find myself here at the International Broadcasting Convention (IBC) with the task of trying to sort out how someone like myself, who totally buys into the theory and practice of ITV, and who has ideas and projects in the pipeline, can fit into the mix.

The IBC is a good convention for this. Many of the conference sessions key on interactivity, there is a gigantic show floor focusing on hardware and technology, and Europe--especially the UK--is light years ahead of the US in deployments and innovation.

That said, this is not an easy task. As an independent, how can any one individual benefit from a massive trade show like this? On the plane flying from San Francisco to Amsterdam I gave that some thought. Expectations cannot be too high, so the goals are threefold: To better understand the industry's take on the "state of ITV," to investigate new production tools available for creating content and interactive applications, and to (hopefully) network with new people, building relationships and trust--which is really what so much of this business is about.

Day One. In all honesty all that happened was logistics. Getting registered; tracking down lost luggage; sorting out Amsterdam's charming, but a bit archaic, transportation system; figuring out how to navigate the massive convention center, which to me feels as if it was built from very large building blocks by a group of kid architects playing in a sandbox.

Day Two. This was Interactive Television Day at the conference center, so it was a full day of sessions. There was much to glean from the panel members. There was also a subtext. It seemed that most panel members recognized that the shine was most definitely off the ITV rose. Not that the rose was dead or dying, but that it was no longer the bright star of the future that many had hoped for.

Most panel members rooted their comments in hard reality. The day's opening panel looked at the Interactive Consumer and featured Patrick Barwise of the London Business School. For a producer of content he offered much food for thought, all based on recent research. To wit: Consumers look to the PC for functionality and information and they look to the TV for fun. ITV is television-plus, not the Internet on TV. Consumers are looking for interactivity that is directly related to the program and that is entertaining. And, most importantly, they want simple functionality; if it is too complex you are history.

These are not necessarily observations a serious documentary producer wants to hear.

This opening session was moderated by Martin Hayward of the Henley Center, a UK-based think tank. He too had observations. These were a bit brighter from the independent's perspective. He noted that the longer a viewer has digital, the more likely they will use ITV. He also noted that viewers like being part of a community, that they are looking to be part of something bigger. It is a process he called "moving from ME to WE."

I liked this because that is what interactivity can be all about: empowering the viewers to feel like they have some control over their own destiny. Interactive documentaries can let viewers ask questions, share comments, go deeper into subject matter. Of course, the question still remains: can this all happen from a technical and economic perspective? An afternoon session called "The Enablers" offered some insight.

The session began with Richard Cooper. He is one of the head ITV development people at the BBC, and he led off with some encouraging statistics. The Beeb is now adding interactivity to an average of 60 TV programs per month. During a recent special, "Test the Nation," which was watched by 3 million people, 1.4 million used the ITV functionality that was offered.

From the BBC's perspective, ITV is now mainstream. The hype is over. Content is now what the audience will base viewing decisions upon. Cooper laid down three challenges for the industry to address as the medium matures: the timeline for creating program interactivity is too long; there needs to be meaningful archiving of program formats; and there need to be more mature production tools to create content models that can work on cross-platforms.

Mathew Huntington, director of product management at OpenTV, picked up from there. He observed that, because of the inherent difficulties of creating for multiple platforms, ITV is hampered by having to limit itself to the lowest common denominator. He went on to say that he hoped, with the evolution of the programming language XML, along with template models, content providers will actually have more creative flexibility. He felt this was true because the platform ground-work had already been done by the tool-set designers.

I would agree with this up to a point. The authoring templates make it easy to create content within existing formats, but if a producer wants to push the envelope and move to a new level of creativity, that producer is still facing a very uphill struggle.

Jonathan Swift of Sys Media and Kees deKoning of a company called Lauchalot both showed authoring development tools which looked promising. These tools are designed for producers who are looking to create content models, and who do not have the resources needed to move forward with the testing and evaluation required by BSkyB and other distribution channels.

During the Q&A at the end of the panel, I asked the group how specifically they were working with independents to actualize content. The BBC's Cooper acknowledged that this was a difficult question. And, alas, the panel could give no specific examples.

Later I had a chance to talk with Jonathan Swift and John Holland (also from Sys), and we are going to continue to discuss further collaboration for creating content for distribution. I think, however, this connection was only made possible by my persistence, and I again wonder how many other independent producers are going to be able to work in this arena.

Day Three. This was the day on which the news business had the floor. The panels followed a logical flow: Gathering the News, Producing the News, and Delivering the News.

It was this last panel that had the greatest appeal for the interactive community. By all accounts, interactivity is now a given in news delivery, and all avenues of delivery are being explored, including broadband, enhanced broadcasts, virtual interactive television channels, 24/7 text services and all manner of mobile text services.

All on the panel, including the BBC's Richard Deverell, Phil Laven of the European Broadcasting Union, and Rhodri Talfan Davies of Video Networks, felt that the momentum of ITV could not be stopped, but that progress will proceed at a slow, evolutionary pace with no major breakthroughs.

So at the end of the day, what does it all mean for the independent production community? Well, it is nothing new really. It all boils down to persistence and believing in a simple vision. Interactive television is good and it will get continually better. Not all viewers will use it, not all viewers will appreciate it, but for those who do, they will love it.

***



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