Think Outside The Set-Top Box

Are interactive television services being left behind? Does the technology need to progress at a quicker pace? iTV Creative Consultant Richard Chong examines the merits and pitfalls of interactive content…

So here we are again. Another discussion about the merits of interactive television. There isn’t a week that goes by without the trade press talking about the lifespan of this new medium. Does it work? Does anyone use it? Just a few of the questions that are regularly being asked.

We all call it a new medium, but in fact the medium is television; a long established and highly effective medium for both entertainment and commercial value. Interactive television should be seen as simply an advance in technology in the same way that High Definition will provide the consumer with better quality pictures and sound.

Yes, numbers of consumers interacting with their viewing may be declining, but this is not the fault of interactive TV as a technology – more likely it is the quality of the services being produced.

In the same way a television programme or a channel can lose viewers because it is not delivering the level of quality that is expected, interactive TV relies heavily on content and cutting-edge creativity to help move it forward.

Where interactive TV has been most effective is when it is truly integrated with the standard broadcast stream. When the BBC had coverage of the Winter Olympics earlier this year, the brilliance of being able to switch from the luge to the half-pipe and then to the downhill was not only useful but really enhanced my viewing. For the first time we all got excited about the Winter Olympics. We already know that the BBC, along with Sky, has been a pioneer of interactivity in sport and cable providers, with Video on Demand – and they all do it very well.

But why does this work so well? The reason why this type of interactivity is so effective is that it does the basics well. It simply provides a framework to allow the viewer to see more TV and more entertainment than we are all used to consuming from a television. All of a sudden we get four channels from one.

So let’s stop talking about “rubbish” technology that’s “not as good as the web”. Interactive TV is not the web and technology will always improve. What we need to concentrate on is increasing the integration of interactivity into the normal viewing patterns of the consumer.

Interactive advertising may benefit from having more integration with the programmes through interactive sponsorship. Interactivity relies heavily on consumer mindset, exclusivity, enhanced viewing or special offers or giveaways.

There is a great deal of interactivity on our screens at the moment but only a small amount really hits the spot. Interactive services seem so disjointed from “normal” TV that the experience can be disappointing.

So what’s the solution? If I knew the answer I’d be a very rich man, but I’ll give it a go.

Platforms and channels should take responsibility for quality control, and encourage user testing for all applications, whatever size. Advertisers should consider interactive TV outside of the 30-second spot and look at activity behind or within progammes as sponsors or providers of content. Creatives need to push the creative boundaries of interactive TV with innovative ideas and cutting edge design and not “pooh-pooh” it because they don’t understand it.

I have worked for a long time with interactive television. The technology is fine – of course it could be better but is that not the same for all technology? It’s called progress. Maybe it’s time our thinking progressed.