Sunday, October 23, 2005

The future for television production

Sometimes I wonder where TV is going. I mean, are screens getting bigger or are they shrinking?

At the smaller end of the scale the video iPod will be closely watched (excuse the small pun) to see whether consumers really want to be able to watch TV anywhere they can, on something the size of a credit card. Similarly, the trial of broadcast to handheld digital devices, such as telephones, will see whether people will watch TV of less quality (or should I say, a lower bitrate?). Maybe consumers are happy to look past the lack of detail for the convenience of mobility. Fox seems to think so, they've plans to offer a device 7" screen in 2007 that will allow people to carry around programs they've recorded on the hard disk named iQ currently available.

On the bigger screens there's the cinemascope version of digital television, which offers better pictures and sound without meeting the consumer's demand for variety. (Although people are saying that even multicasting won't improve the uptake of digital television.) Around the corner is high definition version of DVD (whatever format wins, although Bill Gates reckons it'll give way sooner, rather than later, to hard disk storage), as well as HD home video cameras and all the depth and detail required to fill the window of a plasma screen. This is why the whole obsession with bigger TVs boggles me - why do you want to be more conscious of the pixels in the current audiovisual media? Those big screens are fine if you're sitting on the other side of the room but maybe I'll see things differently when HD content becomes more widely available.

It seems to me that whatever screen you look at, it may as well be offering the internet. If you take the view the different screen sizes discussed previously show what high speed connections could and should be offering, imagine the variety of what could be available. Especially if Google develop a video search facility as good as the one they offer for images. Or maybe Yahoo will do something decent for a change. Last year most of the TV I watched was downloaded, so where's the incentive for broadcasters? Higher speed connections will further facilitate the distribution of pirated programs and, if there's any advertising left outside of the program, better methods of removing the breaks.

Content is key and, with increasing variety in options of distribution, the onus will be on matching the medium to the message. Consider this observation by Richard Walsh, former director of PBL, Text Media and Cinema Plus, in a recent address to the Australian Shareholders Association:
"Free-to-air television is holding onto Test cricket and rugby by the skin of its teeth. Sport, news and films have for a very long time been the mainstays of network television. As sport moves to pay TV, as datacasting becomes more important in the news area and DVD availability destroys the feature film business, the networks face a very challenging decade."

I'd guess there's potential in tailoring material to the consumer. Perhaps offering a unique experience of a narrative, complete with advertisements customised to your demographic. Hell, if they could make it really entertaining, you might even be able to charge for it. It's been suggested to me that, with the ability to make free phonecalls online, telephonic companies will need to package new services to continue to compete. This has been called the Triple Play option. Or maybe producers could sell their programs directly to viewers?

Either way, television broadcasters will need to embrace the move to improved digital services or invest in local content to compete with people downloading what they want, when they want it. Broadcasted content will need something to distinguish itself from what's readily available and bigger pictures, better sound might be it. (Unless, of course, the author was right in an article I read about how the detail in high definition isn't always pretty. He quoted a plastic surgeon as saying the on air talent are very nervous.) Hell, maybe Mike Rebbechi was right when he speculated whether we'll be watching 3DTV in the near future?

Whatever may come, I'm sure I've made the right choice in studying television production. The skills in creating and producing compelling content will only grow more valuable as the cost of distribution decreases. Previously my studies focused on print journalism and I considered graphic design. But, at this rate, print will increasingly be limited to packaging and journalism will need to be as engaging as television if it's going to compete. Bring it on.

4 comments:

Jason Richardson said...

Digital TV is getting a bit of press at the moment, today Alan Kohler has written a column coming to similar conclusions. I like his line about having the Macquarie Bank invest in set top boxes.

My father told me nearly a decade ago that they should auction the spectrum to buy digital set top boxes and ensure the transition from analogue. When I think about how quickly mobile phones and DVDs have become since, it makes me wonder who other than the Macquarie Bank will invest in the infrastructure required to update broadcast technologies?

Jason Richardson said...

Well, it looks like things are moving quicker than I thought. Since my post on Saturday, NBC Nightly News have announced they'll offer their newscasts for download (after affliates on the other coast have screened them); and Google have been described as moving toward television:
"it is preparing to extend its technology to nearly every other medium, most significantly television. It is looking toward a world of digital cable boxes and Internet-delivered television that will allow it to show commercials tailored for each viewer, as it does now for each Web page it displays."

Jason Richardson said...

Interesting to see things are moving locally with Channel Nine boss Sam Chisholm declaring mobile TV is "the next battleground"

Jason Richardson said...

http://news.com.com/What+creature+will+succeed+the+couch+potato/2100-1025_3-5979290.html