Thursday 26 November 2009

Technology changing too fast? No, we're just tweaking


We all like to think that, being in the technology game, we are in a fast moving, era-defining job. Nothing moves fast then technology, right? And that’s a good thing, yes?
Well, no on both counts. According to Rory Sutherland, Vice-Chairman on Ogilvy Group – who took to the stage at MIG’s Digital Media & Interactive Lunch yesterday in London – technology isn’t really moving that fast: all we are doing is finessing what we already have. The real innovation in any sector tends to take place in the first 10 to 20 years. After that, its just tweaking.
Take the motor car, suggested Sutherland: the technological leap between walking and driving a Model T Ford was huge. The leap between driving a Model T Ford and today’s Mondeo is really not that great. The interface as been improved and the design safer and more refined, but really its basically the same technology.
The digital world is the same. The leap between the invention of radio communications and the mobile (and even the internet) is similarly not that great a leap from no radio to radio.
So where does this leave us on the eve of 2010? Well, while things like the iPhone and the web have really shaken up telemedia this year, they are not really the rapid steps forward that many would have us believe. They are a finessed version of what we already have.
Sutherland was talking to the 120-odd heads of mobile from leading broadcasters, agencies, retailers, e-tailers, operators and media companies that MIG had gathered together about what they should be looking for from the future of mobile. And strangely – and quite refreshingly – his take is that rather than always looking at bleeding edge tech and what it can do, the next decade will be more about finessing what we already have: using technology to make life better rather than inventing stuff and trying to put it to work.
This he dubs “un-vention”: the application of more psychology than technology. In Africa people routinely walk 5 miles each morning to be told there is no work for them today. The mobile phone, even in the poorest countries, is replacing this walk: it makes life better and more productive. We should be applying the same here in the developed world.
Why, asks Sutherland, don’t all goods a serial number and a shortcode on them so that the owner can simple text to re-order? And he doesn’t just mean when you’re running low on milk, but also when you want new socks, trousers, a TV, a microwave, a car…. Everything. Simple and, from a retail perspective, a great boon – customer for life or what?
Sutherland also touched on the big theme of the day: payments. While the telemedia community waits with despondency the arrival of Payforit3.0, thos wanting to sell things are busily looking at all billing tools. Echoing what David Sheridan from MX Telecom told me the other day, people want a wealth of payment options. In Sutherland’s view “at least 20”. Give the retailer and consumer the choice of how to pay for things, even if that means bowing to the zeitgeist: “WAP:, no one pays,” says Sutherland. “Call is ‘app billing’ and everyone pays”.

Monday 2 November 2009

The Future of TV

Who’d have thought that the appearance on BBC TV’s Question Time of odious Nazi nutter Nick Griffin would have given so many middle aged, middle class technophobes a vision of the future? No I don’t mean that Griffin and his theatre of hate are going to seize power (God forbid), more that it saw usually passive TV viewers reaching for their mobile phones and Twittering and Facebooking away like crazy while the show was on air.

If you are under 30 you will probably think so what, but to me – as I approach middle age – I was astounded by how many people I know who never update their Facebook profiles suddenly appeared and started ranting about Griffin. Then others joined in. Pretty soon – about 10 minutes into the broadcast – there was a huge heated debate between people I know, people I don’t know but who know people I do, and people none of us know about  the programme. All on mobile.

And this is what really made me feel good inside. Suddenly a bunch of people who usually poo-poo the idea that we are all going to be interacting while watching TV were doing it. I have, because of the business I am in, long been a user of my mobile while watching TV. I tweet, I Facebook, I email, I Google stuff, I Shazam tunes that are playing. But most of my non-telemedia friends don’t.

But now they might. Presented with something that they were interested in got the older crowd going and what a riot it was: we were all broadly in agreement over the content of the show, but people raised new and interesting points and even some great jokes. It was a real experience.

But this is the future of what we do. It starts, as Question Time showed, with some social networking banter, but it won’t be long before the augmented reality services we see on mobiles are linked to TV programmes and we suddenly become two screen viewers.

This has huge ramifications for how the media and telemedia industries develop. The services that can be created using what we have today and this buy in from viewers could be huge. The question is how can this be monetised?

Well in the most obvious first instance is to start to look at what can be done around advertising on TV and the device; what can then be done with augmented reality for TV advertising; and then looking at how to perhaps keep those engaged on the second device on the air and spending through value-added services.

As Telemedia360 in Liverpool showed on 21 October, the real key is relevance. Question Time also showed this. The social interaction that that particular show spawned was a result of it being something that engaged a particular demographic with a topic that compelled them to communicate with their peers. And this is the lesson that we all need to learn to drive media interaction forward: make it relevant, make it good and make it cheap – and people will pay.