TV versus Internet

I am going to participate to a debate on the Internet and the future of television broadcasting at the University of Oxford Internet Institute on Friday 16th October.

All participants were asked to provide initial comments that would be discussed during the debate. Here is my opinion piece:

The television broadcasting industry is in danger.

And once again, this is all the fault of the digital revolution.

On the one hand, it is evident that the advent of broadband access for the general public is disrupting, if not destroying some sectors such as the music industry.

However, one could argue that broadcasted television’s lack of appeal is not just due to the superiority of digital platforms, but also to its intrinsic limits: in an age where computer and mobile screen interfaces can do wonder, watching programmes on a TV set is indeed a frustrating experience.

Take for example the problem of screen sizing. How many times have we ended up watching people on the screen who look wide… simply because the TV set is enlarging the image to the panoramic view? Apparently, there is a “smart” option on TV sets, which automatically re-sizes images. So if TVs have a brain, it is smaller than that of my other media players.

Just like a landline telephone handset compares poorly to a mobile phone, television interfaces and remote controls are inferior to PC and Internet interactivity. As the Duke of Edinburgh elegantly put it this week: “to work out how to operate a TV set, you practically have to make love to the thing. Why can’t you have a handset that people who are not 10 years old can actually read”. No further comments needed!

I concede these considerations may be trivial… So, amongst a long list of more serious issues, I am highlighting two critical topics for our forthcoming debate at the University of Oxford’ Internet Institute on the future of broadcasting:

First, let us talk about QUALITY OF CONTENT.

From chess to foreign affairs through to football, military history, economics or ballroom dancing, our post-modern society provides such a variety of hobbies and passions that television programmers are confronted with the impossible task of addressing the wide interests of the audience.  This Sisyphean mission must have frustrated countless TV executives, hence their propensity to aim for a common denominator.

How many evenings per week do we think: “there is nothing interesting tonight on TV… once again”?

Take architecture: I am a fan. Why can’t there be a decent programme on the latest news about buildings and urbanism? We all know that cost is king, especially when the target audience is not massive. But a one-hour programme dedicated to architecture could be in the form of a debate between academics, practicians and amateurs, nothing more. A monthly discussion would be sufficient to satisfy my curiosity and passion. More would be perfect, but I cannot be too demanding.

The same could be said about jazz music, diplomacy, roman noir, philosophy, archaeology, etc.

By catering for the masses, TV cannot compete with platforms such as social media, blogs or video aggregators, where niche topics strive.

If TV channels want to retain their freshness, “live” effect, utility and relevance, they must diversify their offerings. With TV channels such as SciFi, Film 4 or Cartoon Network, they have started to do so years ago. However, rather than solely betting on specialist channels, they should also think about mainstream TV channels that would offer different programmes, that are not just cop dramas, soaps, news and reality shows. There is room for mainstream channels… with a lateral twist.

Second, there is a problem with regards to GEOGRAPHICAL AVAILABILITY.

Evidently, for media broadcasting industries, legal frameworks are of national nature. This is a critical issue in Europe, where a significant proportion of EU citizens do not live in their country of origin. For those “expats”, watching a TV show from their native country is difficult. There are ersatz of TV channels, such as French-speaking state-funded network TV5, which are supposed to select the best of French, Swiss and Canadian programmes. In fact, it is an illogical and confusing amalgamation of disparate programmes. And in addition, you often need to pay for these kinds of un-attractive TV channels!

Because radio needs less bandwidth, or thanks to a more relaxed legal framework (?), it is far easier to listen to foreign radios channels. Coming back to my experience as a French expat, there is a wonderful iPhone application called France Radio, which allows me to listen, live, to all French state-owned radio stations. Believe it or not, this service is provided for free by two Spanish software programmers…  Either they are in love with French culture, or they have something against state radios!

With the arrival of Hulu and Boxee in Europe next year, what happened with radio will be repeated with television.

There will still be an issue with advertising and legal restrictions.

For the former, addressable advertising may be the panacea. Germans living in Italy will have their TV show interrupted by an ad for a local Italian retail chain, thus allowing advertising revenue to be maintained (the multiple problems generated by addressable advertising will be discussed in a separate blogpost).

For the latter, the EU must simply come up with a pan-European set of rules that will allow the emergence of a “broadcasting Shengen” agreement. Let TV programmes freely cross our frontiers! Knowing the efficiency of European lawmakers, I presume this undertaking should take a couple of months.

With all these issues around traditional TV broadcasting, the future success of Internet television as a flexible and value-added service will not come as a surprise.

Still, “classical” television broadcasting is not dead… at least for now.

TV is also about feeling a sense of community: we all love to watch, at the same time, something unique, enticing, extra-ordinary. We just enjoy so much the sense of sharing an amazing experience, live, with a few friends, but also with millions of people.

In a world where multi-tasking and “always-on” seem to prevail, and where interacting with friends, strangers and even brands is commonplace, traditional television’s main weakness, that is the passiveness it implies, may be its ultimate strength: What a delight, after a day spent struggling with a continuous flow of emails, SMS, instant messages, tweets and blogposts, to peacefully watch a great TV programme. With no red button to click on… Am I that old school?