Skip to content

Posts from the ‘television’ Category

Mar 19

The Next Big Thing

What is the next killer entertainment programme? What is the next global entertainment format? What is the next big thing?

These were the questions posed by Alex Connock at the Broadcasting Press Guild in London last week. Alex suggested that the prize for the person who invents the next big thing would equate to tens of millions of revenue.

So what is the next big thing?

My initial thoughts took me back to 1990 (I was around 12 years old) and memories of a popular British game show The Generation Game. Hosted by Bruce Forsyth the programme matched two members of a family against two members from another family. The games were probably ridiculous from what I remember, but at the time I loved the madness of it all, and probably hoped that I would one day participate.

Today it is the X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing, their format of phone-ins, public voting and tales of human woe and elation are very distant from television entertainment that came before it, but in some ways they are just the same. For one, Bruce Forsyth is at still at the helm, and more significantly, despite the innovations and format change, these shows are entertaining. Whether we love them or loath them, they are just good family fun and even in this age of Internet, they show no signs of recession. If anything the web is making them stronger as the online chatter perpetuates more interest, more event, and more reasons to watch.

But how did we get to where we are today and what came about to make it all happen?

Let’s take a brief walk through the history of television entertainment.

During the 1940′s and 1960′s television brought about Candid Camera – a concealed camera filming ordinary people being confronted with unusual situations. This format sparked a number of prank shows over many decades including Beadles About and Trigger Happy TV. And then there was Top of the Pops –  a national favourite for almost six decades. At its height, Top of the Pops attracted over 15 million viewers each week. Parents would scoff at the new music and young folk would aspire to the look like the latest star.

The 1970′s to 1990′s offered such programmes as Blind Date, Gladiators, and of course The Generation Game. Blind Date was a popular dating game show hosted by the nation’s favourite scouse songstress Cilla Black, and at its height the show attracted up to 18.2 million viewers.

2000 to 2010 was the age of technology bringing forth Big Brother and Who Wants to be a Millionaire?. Big Brother arguably ushered in the dawn of reality television and overnight celebrity, and Who wants to be a millionaire? is the most internationally popular television franchise of all time, having aired in more than 100 countries worldwide.

And then there is The X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing.

But what qualities do these entertainment programmes all share?

1. Family oriented: All of these programmes bring families together. It is Saturday night, the working week is over, the after school clubs are done, the shopping has been brought home, dinner has been tidied away and it is now time for the X-Factor. It is a scene repeated over millions of households up and down the land. Yesterday’s family had The Generation Game, today’s family has the X-Factor, and no doubt it will be replaced by something else tomorrow, but the one consistent element will be family – children, parents, grandparents and pets, all watching and talking about the same show.

2. Social change: Each programme, in its own way, has mirrored social change or brought about social change from the confines of our living room. How many young teenagers would copy the look of their favourite artist on Top of the Pop’s, whether it be the dance moves of Pan’s People or the tartan-trimmed outfits of the Bay City Rollers? Big Brother also pushed boundaries and created a nation more open to self-analysis and introspection.

3. New Technology: Candid Camera – small camera’s that can be concealed in anything from a lamppost to a pair of spectacles. Who wants to be a millionaire? – audience interaction with electronic keypads, and X-Factor and Strictly have also benefited from lucrative phone voting technologies.

4. Format Innovation: Alongside new technology, the programme makers have all brought about a distinctive format innovation. Blind Date was brilliant in its design – three contestants competing for the heart of one. Gladiator – competitors vying for a place in the final round or the eliminator. Who Wants to be a Millionaire? – a radio based competition reengineered for television, and the X-Factor – wherein the earlier episodes are almost more entertaining than the finale. Such innovations are risky and in each instance unproven before their first airing.

5. Charismatic presenters: Cilla Black, Bruce Forsyth, Jeremy Beadle, Simon Cowell and Chris Tarrant. Outside of the show, each presenter commands an audience in their own right.

6. Catch phrase: Each programme will be remembered for a catch phrase – “Final answer?”, “How did they get on?”, “Nice to see you, to see you nice”, “Gladiators Ready” and so on so forth.

7. People: From the very earliest example in our collection ‘the man on the street‘ plays a central role, and increasingly so over the years. Intended or not, these programmes bring about celebrity in the ordinary man. They also increasingly rely on audience participation as part of the entertainment experience.

8. Tabloid Headlines: Many of our examples have an intertwined relationship with the popular press. The shows create headlines that sell newspapers, and the headlines can often influences the shows. Whether it be the stories of winners or losers. Scandal or gossip. It is all part of the entertainment experience.

9. Business: We can not forget that entertainment is business, and increasingly big business. Shows such as X-Factor no long rely solely on advertising revenue (although this may well be limited to the broadcaster), but on lucrative phone voting, record sales and spin-off merchandise.

10. Entertaining: This is the magic. Each of our examples is entertaining. At one point in all our histories we have enjoyed one of these productions. We have been drawn in, certainly smiled, and probably laughed. When all is said and done, they are simply good fun.

So, there we have it. The next big thing will likely be brought about from new technologies, format innovations and new business models. At their heart will be charismatic presenters, the man on the street, catch phrases and tabloid headlines. Our families will watch it and perhaps be changed by it. In the end it will almost certainly be entertaining.

–

Article posted at Free Trade – the free trade of ideas.

Mar 8

And the winner is … ?

If you are reading this, then you are most likely breathing, and if you are breathing, you know that today was the 82nd Annual Academy Awards. The hosts – Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. The venue – Kodak Theatre, Los Angeles. Time zone – UTC/GMT -8 hours.

The Oscars was hard to miss. The average man would have to unplug him/herself from all media including radio, web, television and print, and probably even boycott their favourite coffee bar or local pub.

The awards are one part of the story, but the media scramble is the most fascinating. Today, sat on my laptop, I gave live witness to Old Media competing with New Media (if you believe such a separation exists). The BBC, CNN were on full tilt, as was The Guardian newspaper. The Oscars were headlined on all their respective pages – live feeds, minute-by-minute updates, photos, spies on the ground and spies inside. They had it covered and we seemingly consumed as the Oscar triumphs and failures hit the top of the ‘Most Read‘ pages.

Note: The Oscar script was already exposed before time as we learned of Sacha Baron Cohen’s plot to award an Oscar as a pregnant Avatar – a stunt that led to his early withdrawal.

All very interesting, but in the interests of getting some work done I thought it best to turn the BBC stream off, but wait, there was New Media. My twitter feed was ablaze with Oscar gossip. My RSS feed posted a blurry picture of what looked like Steve Jobs. Is it? Isn’t it? Why is Steve there? An Apple announcement maybe? More gossip. More tweets. Shortly thereafter a savvy and well-known blogger announced their Oscar analysis with a well-timed tweet ‘And the winner for best actor is Jeff Bridges – click link’. I clicked the link, along with a thousand more, according to their hit counter. I then typed Oscar into Google to determine the name of the hosts and I am presented with a live feed of the winners as they happen. Wikipedia is also fully up-to-date and correct within minutes of the announcement.

Old media. New media. Wherever it came from all were looking for an audience. All were looking to capitalise on the clicks, links and demand for this event. Not just demand, but for those who were inadvertently pulled in.

The final award is given, the final glass chinked and the cameras are switched off for another year. My twitter feed goes silent and I retire to the living room for some evening’s entertainment only to find “Tonight on 7 – Live from the Oscars!!”, although not quite. Old Media is right there, doing what it has always done. Broadcasting the event after the event. But I have seen this already. Okay, maybe not, but I certainly lived it.

Old media fighting with New media is a battle of truly Hollywood proportions, particularly at a time when we are asking questions of what the BBC should and should not be doing with our license fee money; Why do we need BBC Oscar coverage when others are doing a perfectly good job?

Where the chips will fall is anybody’s guess and who actually benefits from the fight is difficult to determine? Competition is good some might say, but is too much just too much? What is certain is this – money is at the root. Whether you are a pro-blogger looking for clicks or Channel 7 looking to top the evening’s viewing figures, the Oscar’s is a perfect event for traffic and ad revenue.

Therein lies the excitement. It is, at its heart, a media storm. The award ceremony itself really isn’t that interesting. The format seems old somehow. A board selects nominees and votes for a winner – which century does this belong too? But the media create the storm, whether we are interested or not, and the storm will likely roll on for weeks in the pages of Hello and Okay? Who wore what? Who kissed who? More twitter, more news, more frenzy, not to mention the occasional ‘jump on the band wagon’ blog post, which of course this is not.

–

Article posted at Free Trade – the free trade of ideas.

Also, congratulations to Christoph Waltz for best supporting actor in ‘Inglourious Basterds’. Well-deserved.

… And can anybody enlighten me as to why ‘District 9′ was nominated for best film? Good grief, that was a shocker by anyone’s standards, least of all the Academy.

Aug 4

1 Comment

Old Media is the New Media

“Coursework … coursework … coursework … Where is your coursework Cahill?”. These were the words reverberating around my head at 3am this morning. It was the same recurring nightmare that haunts me at least once a year. It is not a normal nightmare like falling off a cliff or being chased by blood thirsty hounds, it is much more frightening than that. I am 30 years old and I am being grilled by an old high school teacher. I am told how my coursework is not yet finished and that I must sit at least one more year of high school before I can continue with my career. It is spine chilling. I mean, seriously, another year of high school!!? What is worse, I actually try to defend myself. I am in a cold sweat trying to explain why I have moved on from high school – “I have passed a few more exams since then”, I say.

Are you laughing? It is frightening, honestly. Well, it scares me because I remember my coursework. I don’t wish to labour on this point, but looking back I think I must have surely achieved an A+ in colouring-in. Every portfolio consisted of masses of colouring-in. Graphic Design was the worst of the lot, pages and pages and pages of colouring-in. Then there was Expressive Arts – a whole wall that I was told to colour-in. But it was the same in science – those diagrams that needed colouring-in, geography – bar charts that needed colouring-in, english – book covers that needed colouring-in. I was probably so drilled with this technique that I probably coloured in my spaghetti bolognese in home economics.

Apart from my coursework nightmare, I do not remember too much about my school days. I remember flash points like scaling the tennis court railings and tearing my trousers (another nightmare). I remember a regular diet of chips, gravy and garlic bread for my lunch, and I remember my mates. Great mates that I still have. But that is about it really. I only mention this because two points worthy of note collided this week. Firstly, the esteemed Prof wrote a great piece or two about his school days. His recollections and memories. They were more vivid than mine and I am only sorry to say that I was one of the usual suspects. The one with the certificate at the end of the school year. Looking back I wish I had played to my rebellious side more often than shying away. I might have more vivid memories. I certainly don’t remember why I was being awarded a certificate. But then, today, SLAM!! To the left of my facebook feed was an innocuous photo collection titled ‘Worden a long time ago’ and the man behind the shots was a teacher from those days. One of the greats – Paddy Allen. Paddy Allen was that teacher who promoted the underdog. He recognised talent and made sure it had direction and a place to excel. He would also promote the academic stars. I remember his challenging nature. He would test you.

scienceLab

Science block. Looking at that equipment, I am sat here wondering how I was ever educated.

Paddy’s photostream has sparked neurons I didn’t even know existed. Those heavy cotton blazers that I ditched after day one because everyone else in the school opted for the simple sweater. The library, the burners in the science lab, music teachers and english teachers. In fact, flicking through these photos brought back more than simple memories. It fired emotion. All my insecurities I felt between the age of 12 and 16. My fear of the older kids, homework, and the sheer scale of it all. It wasn’t just fear though. It brought back the excitement. The good stuff like having your own pocket money, playing on a full-sized footy pitch, and I have to be honest – girls. A whole bunch of them, not that I had any luck in that department, nor even on the football field.

teachers

I would never have remembered this unless I saw the photo. Now that I have, it was like yesterday. The last day of school before Christmas. I only hope the audio recorder was broken. I don’t need to relive that.

This was the best form of entertainment. There isn’t a television production team nor any amount of Hollywood dollar that could come close to this. It is your life played back again. It is bewildering, frightening and simply hilarious. The oddest thing is this. I am not even in any of the photos. I just recognise the faces and the classrooms. The memories are vivid again. I can almost smell the tar during that hot summer when the builders reconstructed the roof on the main block.

This is a potent form of entertainment and for all the difficult social questions that surround a service like facebook, here is a case for the defense. A connection to an old teacher. A connection to old friends and the resurrection of dead brain matter. With all this, perhaps then old media is the new media? Perhaps there is something to be said for holding back a photo or a video clip? Perhaps its impact will be exponentially greater in five, ten, twenty or fifty years time? The old media has a new context. It will punch more weight.

I also had a similar experience a few years back. It was Christmas day and my uncle brought along a DVD. My uncle has been a television engineer since I can remember and he owned one of the earliest portable video cameras. Mind you this thing weighed a ton and was powered by a battery the size of a breeze block, but it did work.

Again, I didn’t really remember my granddad, but when we played the film there he was, in full colour, play fighting with me at six years old. It was extraordinary and it felt like I was watching something I was not supposed to see. My reaction was to turn away, but of course I didn’t. It was compelling viewing. Neurons were fired and raw emotion stirred. There were tears in my mother’s eyes and gasps of awe across the room. One such scene involved my cousin on a BMX bike. He was building a ramp. A ramp that was only ever going to lead to catastrophe. I turned to look at my cousin whilst he watched this footage. He was in raptures. He was laughing so hard it caused him physical pain. He had to leave the room.

I really do think there could be a new trend in old media. How this will play out is yet to be seen. I certainly think the incumbent media organisations will look for a piece of the action. It is way beyond the format of today’s television and the shows that point a lens at the moment of heartbreak.

The delivery channel will be interesting, but more so will be the response of our media rich youth. They have always known digital cameras and video capture devices. It is pervasive, instant and always on. But perhaps, just perhaps, there is a smart kid that is holding a media object back. He or she has a sense that this content might well be better served through the passage of time.

The other kid will be found colouring-in.

Sep 25

Channel 4 on Media and Health

Not much writing from me here, but I think Channel 4  has been looking into the ideas of Geoffrey Rose and integrating this into their new media strategy – Next on 4.

Argument from Geoffrey Rose (as summarised by Peter Allebeck – 2008):

“The distribution of risk levels for major determinants of disease follow a continuum in which the high-risks persons are at the extreme end. A large number of persons with moderately increased risk levels contribute more cases than a small number with extreme risk levels. Thus, interventions, targeting the general population, aiming at shifting the risk curve to the left, are more effective than interventions targeting high-risk groups. This latter is called the prevention paradox, since it is not the individuals with moderately elevated risk that have the greatest benefit from such interventions”.

Direct from the pages of Next on 4:

***************** Excerpt *****************

We have developed four core public purposes which give practical expression to the end benefits that result from Channel 4 delivering its remit. They are:

  1. To nurture new talent and original ideas.
  2. To champion alternative voices and fresh perspectives
  3. To challenge people to see the world differently
  4. To inspire change in people’s lives.

As television viewing fragments across niche channels, Channel 4 must continue to provide a common space open to all, drawing mass audiences to its most popular programmes, with a wide-ranging schedule that offers something to everyone at least some of the time.

Embarassing Illnesses

Dismissed in advance as sensationalist, cheap and sick, when it was broadcast the series was widely acknowledged to be a serious, brave and important piece of public service television. Created by Birmigham-based independent producer Maverick TV, the programmes offered candid information and advice, with viewers even able to make appointments to attend clinic. One viewer called Channel 4 to say as result of the programmes she had discovered that she had an early stage breast cancer. Another called to say that early detection of cancer, prompted by the programme, had saved here son’s testicle. The series was watched by an average of 2.5 million people, with a particularly high proportion of young viewers.

Viewers look to television as a key source of information on a wide range of personal interests and concerns.

Notwithstanding their emphasis on the wider social, cultural and political role of television, respondents were keen to stress its importance as being a source of information on domestic matters, hobbies and personal interests. Brand Democracy’s research also showed that television was seen as having an important role in dealing with personal issues. People valued the information they pick up from programmes on topics such as health and diet, property and family issues… they thought television has a particularly strong role to play in helping people to manage transitions in their life or address difficult issues – for example, relating to illness, raising children, drugs or sexual behaviour…. Participants in the Brand Democracy research thought that channel 4 ‘had a distinctive way of delivering advice, hints and tips, which revolves around the use of real-life examples from which viewers can draw comparison to their own life’. They identified a wide range of programmes that can help improve their daily life or help them through transitions, such as Supernanny, How Clean is Your House?, Wife Swap, You are What You Eat, Location, Location, Location, and How to Look Good Naked.

We will launch a major digital media pilot fund for content and services with clear public service ambition (4IP: Innovation for the Public).

Channel 4 has already experimented in new digital media with a number of educational, factual, and documentary-based initiatives. Only economic constraints have prevented us from going further faster. We believe it is time to make the next major step… We therefore plan to establish a new ring-fenced pilot fund, which we have called 4IP, to invest in new content and services across digital platforms, with a partnership model at its core… This is one of  the biggest and most exciting calls-to-action to new and emergent digital media companies in the UK… 4IP wil create new services for UK audiences by investing in a range of projects across digital media, including such areas news, sport, talent, games, education, and navigation… This pilot fund will demonstrate Channel 4’s commitment to finding new ways of fulfilling its purposes and ensuring that it can remain relevant in a rapidly changing world.

***************** End of Excerpt *****************

Nov 19

A packet of Rolo’s and a glass of Shandy Bass

I used to love Saturday nights. Thinking back today I do not actually know why. Maybe because it was the end of the week and and I had a whole 24 hours before I had to think about school again. Maybe I just felt happy and safe being at home. Or perhaps it was because of the sweets (Rolo’s in particular) and a glass of Shandy Bass I was allowed for that one evening. In all honesty though, I think it was because I used to love that one-hour of the week when I would sit down with my Mum and we would watch ‘The Generation Game’ together. Hosted by Bruce Forsyth the programme matched two members of a family against another two members from another family. The games were probably ridiculous from what I remember, but at the time I loved the madness of it all, and probably hoped that I would one day be a participant with my Uncle or Aunty.

But I grew up. I passed my school exams, I almost failed at college (I’ll try less next time!), but did good at University. My ideas changed and I soon became the pest of my families Saturday night entertainment. Something had happened to me that made me question everything I saw on the TV. Programmes like Big Brother or Pop Idol were confusing. They seemed too simple, too contrived. They reflected a country addicted to the idea of ‘Posh and Becks’ and quick routes to fame and fortune. It just wasn’t entertaining to see a camera focus on someone’s despair at loosing out on a career in music, or for someone to be booed and jeered when leaving the Big Brother House. My poor Mum. I would sit there, and play on like an old record. “Those acts have no talent’… “Why are we watching this?”… “There must be more to life than this”. I was wrong to give her a tough time though. Of all the people I know, there are few that work harder. She puts in a tireless amount of effort to keep those around her happy and she succeeds everyday. These programmes were her escape. An hour or so where she can put her brain to one side and watch some light entertainment. Last year I told myself to break the record, give my Mum a break, and well just loosen up. So, as a result I started to watch the X-factor, and to my surprise I was entertained, particularly by the early episodes with some hilarious efforts to win the praise of Simon Cowell and co. I also thought Leona Lewis was a worthy winner, and now a potentially great talent for the British Music Industry ). And then there is ‘I’m a Celebrity Get me Out of Here’. Again, I was entertained by the comedy duo of Ant & Dec who bring a blaze of Ozzie sunshine into British homes in the lead up to Christmas.

I now realise that both these programmes, no matter how contrived, are just good family entertainment. They are the ‘Generation Game’, as I remember it, for millions of youngsters and adults up and down the land.

But, still, there is something different about today. Different from when I was chomping on my Rolo’s and drinking a small tanker of Shandy Bass. The difference is technology and more so the ability of this generation to choose. We no longer have to accept what the BBC or ITV put together and call Saturday night entertainment. We have alternative sources – YouTube, My Space, DVD’s, or previously recorded Digital Content. And choose we do. Statistics suggest so, but equally a simple ethnographic survey would point to this trend. I have seen a cousin of mine in Ireland watch episodes of Southpark through YouTube on his laptop rather than Coronation Street in the corner of the living room. I have seen my niece playing video clips to friends of her own school trip to France through her mobile phone. Most recently, my Sister was competing with my Dad. It was YouTube versus Top Gear. One room had funny clips playing on YouTube, the other Top Gear on BBC 2. People were wandering from one room to the other confused at to what they actually wanted to watch.

Let’s not get too carried away though as I think it is fair to say that society, particularly mainstream society, is only just beginning to understand what it actually means to choose. Even though the paradigm shift is earth shattering for some, it is actually subtler for others, but it is there. Just consider this video clip from one of my students (Matthew) here at Manchester Business School… I will reference his full name when I see him next week.

Matthew is right though. We have the freedom to choose, and as we begin to see it in media and entertainment, we will most likely begin to command it elsewhere. I want to be able to choose a better bank, an ethical bank. I want to choose where I procure my energy from, natural sources or nuclear? I want to choose public services? This though is slightly more difficult. Big industries such as media, banking, and energy have though recognised this trend and we can see evidence of new and emerging structures in response. Sky + is one early response from BSB. It uses digital technology so that programming can be pre-recorded at watched at a time that is convenient to you. This is a brilliant innovation, if not a great comedy line from Peter Kay – “I’ve sky plus’d it”. People get to watch more of what they like, rather than what the networks command they watch. It is brilliant because it is simple to do, and the mainstream like it. They use it without concern or pain. This doesn’t mean to say that ‘X-factor’ and “I’m a Celebrity’ don’t command big television audiences. Of course they do. This is because the nation still likes big. We like the mainstream stuff. We won’t easily navigate away from it, but again the change is subtle. It is happening. Social Media’, if it is to compete, will have to get better. It isn’t that bad now, often brilliant. But it will need to get better at drawing the mainstream away from ‘big’ production.

I am not exactly sure how social Media will do this, but I have a hunch that the closer the entertainment is to our own lives, the more likely we are to select it over and above ‘big’ production. We would probably, in some ways, prefer to watch the soap opera of our own lives, family, and friends rather than a scripted episode of Eastenders or Coronation Street. Perhaps this is Facebook? What about a son or daughter who decides to take a year from study and travel around the Far East and Australia? Surely a weekly video blog would be more exciting than Michael Palin’s latest travelogue?

Choice and Personalisation are all disruptive themes that affect public service delivery as much as they do the large television, media, and news networks. The debate is filtering through and so Local Government now faces the same questions as a Sky, CNN, or ITV. Can we always rely on ‘big’ production? ‘Big’ service delivery? Can we bring choice into the services we offer? How do Social Enterprises actually get better so that citizens feel comfortable about switching? Do we start with the individual – the family, the friends, the network and redesign 21st Century services around them.

Oldham In Control have made significant strides on both choice and personalisation.

They have put in place a radical innovation that awards care money in response to an individuals needs or wishes, rather than the local authority aggregating demand and delivering a large, standardised service to the many. This innovation, of placing cash and choice in the hands of the care recipient begins to drive the theoretical components put forward. The care recipient can now choose what services they wish to procure – choice. They might well wish for a neighbour or relative to wash and dress them each day – personalisation. In fact, some of the most moveable impacts of these innovations are told by the recipients of the service themselves. Outcomes that extend beyond service improvement, monies saved, or technology adopted. It is, in the end, a human story.

This blog entry itself was, at times, a human story. What it does hope to achieve though is more tales of the unexpected. Entertainment and Media does not immediately marry with Local Government, but perhaps there are more opportunities and challenges shared than what we might first think. Both seek to influence the societies in which we live. Both sectors are marked with large organisations and complex systems. They have, to date, maintained a privileged position of access and control to services. Can this realistically continue? They will both be affected by Social Media technologies, and this in itself will fundamentally change the way local government is presented to the outside world, and also how media engages with local issues.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.