email signup

Recent Opinions

Tags

Syndication

Archives

TDG Opinions

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

Bookmark and Share  Subscribe to RSS Feeds  Subscribe for TDG UpdatesDownload More Info

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate
Michael Greeson, Founding Partner, Research

August 12, 2009

Linguist Benjamin Whorf once noted, “language is not simply a reporting device for an experience but a defining framework for it.” Put another way, the words we use to describe our experiences provide the framework within which we make sense of these same experiences. Words do not simply describe some objective reality; they are agents in determining it. Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and others have similarly noted the constitutive nature of language.

Given such an important role, one would think human beings would take more care in assigning labels to “things,” but we know this is not the case. Nowhere is this more obvious than in regards to the language used to describe emerging consumer technologies.

Take, for example, the shift from “old” media to “new” media. Yes, this shift has and continues to disrupt the worlds of mass media and consumer technology. Not surprisingly, the language we use to characterize this shift is itself under persistent pressure due to the torrid pace of innovation – especially as it pertains to Internet video.

In describing the intermingling of TV and Internet video, TDG has employed a very basic dichotomy: there is PC-to-TV delivery (Internet-based video enjoyed on the TV) and TV-to-PC delivery (made-for-TV content enjoyed on the PC). This bi-directional description has served its purpose for several years, but its usefulness is diminishing. Why? Because it confuses platform language (the living room “TV”) with content language (“TV programs” or “made-for-TV” content).

In the new world of multi-screen video, should the term “TV” represent a platform for viewing or a type of content? What happens when “TV broadcasters” push their “TV programs” onto the Internet for storage and distribution to Internet-enabled PCs? Similarly, what happens when Internet-based video content that was not first “made-for-TV” is displayed on a “TV” screen?

Splitting hairs, you say? Not at all. These are just a few examples of how the TV-centric language long used to describe video creation, aggregation, distribution, and consumption is being destabilized by the shift to digital and Internet-based video technologies. As these tectonic shifts continue to occur, we must be diligent in our efforts to create and maintain a language that fits the observed phenomenon.

In place of the original dichotomy, TDG suggests using the following (if only for the short term):

  1. Internet-to-TV video delivery (meaning Internet-based video enjoyed on the TV), and

  2. TV-to-Internet video delivery (meaning “made-for-TV” video enjoyed on net-connected PCs and other such devices).

Interestingly, the first concept is widely discussed, be it as a replacement or supplement to existing PayTV services. The second concept is only now in vogue, with Time Warner Cable and Comcast (among others) looking to push high-value cable network content online via “TV Everywhere” efforts. TDG is set to launch a new consumer research project dedicated specifically to this topic.

Yes, I am fully aware that these conceptions are themselves imperfect and will ultimately break down. Even today, three-screen discussions involve two additional delivery elements (Internet-to-mobile and TV-to-mobile). Other challenges may include the following:

  • Given this conception of TV-to-Internet video delivery, should not Hulu be included in this category for much the same reasons that “TV Everywhere” efforts are? Whether from broadcasters or cable operators, these shows were first “made for TV” and only later repurposed for Internet viewing. Hmmm...
  • What about shows that TimeWarner decides to make available online for their PayTV subscribers and which are viewed within TimeWarner’s broadband network and never traverse the open Internet? Is that still “TV-to-Internet” video delivery?

Given the pace of innovation and the expansion and addition of new experiences, whatever language we use to characterize these experiences will need constant tweaking to ensure its fit with new realities. TDG is obliged to make certain to keep the pressure on, always in search of language which “better saves the phenomenon.” Yes, it will be a perpetual challenge, but TDG is up to the task, as evidenced by our recent Market dBrief™, Toward a Quantum Theory of Media. This is but the first of many such papers TDG will offer focused on understanding the disruptive changes affecting the media world.



ShareThis
Only published comments... Aug 11 2009, 05:00 AM by Michael Greeson
Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

 

Charles Mauro said:

Interesting post on language and terminology. We have found in the execution of professional usability studies that one of the most important predictors of usability is the relationship between terminology used on primary and secondary navigation and the users mental model of what they expect to experience once they select a button or link. If these two factors match then generally usability on primary navigation and information seeking behaviors is often acceptable. It is also interesting to note that simple changes to terminology often have the largest impact on improving the usability of complex sites.

August 13, 2009 2:52 PM
 

David H. Deans said:

Michael, perhaps the legacy term "set-top box" has also become somewhat obsolete, and it's use is confusing given the current and evolving scenarios.

A hybrid STB concept can combine linear programming, traditional VoD and OTT internet video. The EPG is often conceived by designers coming from the traditional cable TV industry, so the device is assumed to be an evolution of the STB. But, should it?

August 17, 2009 9:31 PM
 

Nietzsche said:

“language is not simply a reporting device for an experience but a defining framework for it.”

         This is limited to fireside chats with trusted friends. Frameworks define how we interpret the language used within.

Words do not simply describe some objective reality; they are agents in determining it.

            There is no objective reality other than that which is within our own heads. The agents are the followers, merely chasing the feelings or desires they need.

Given such an important role, one would think human beings would take more care in assigning labels to “things,”

            Humans take no more care than any other animal. We assign those things that we know or feel. There is no important role, unless we determine it based upon nonchalant necessity.

Take, for example, the shift from “old” media to “new” media.

           Nothing new here. We use those mediums available to achieve an understanding we desire with as little challenge as possible. Whether that challenge be from intellect or without interruption (i.e. commercials etc). This supposed shift occurred decades ago. Only now is a medium able to deliver it.

In describing the intermingling of TV and Internet video

            There is no intermingling at this level. Given that only advertisements are at risk or their (the) capital, there never could be. Capital needed to sustain any given medium is what must intermingle with the user. Give me a reason why I shouldn't walk to the fridge during a commercial and I will watch it. Otherwise, find a mechanism that forces me to pay and I will. Over 30yrs of TV watching and I only ever paid attention to the SuperBowl ads. It is just now that advertisers are seeing this phenomenon, most consumers don't care. And not as if we ever did.

As for the rest, I had a retort, but am unwilling to put forth the effort. If only Nietzsche were around to do this. No need to quote him though, as his language, destructive as it is, alerts us all to a common denominator. Without the need for a medium beyond a simple philosophical book, TV never had it so good. Or bad :)

September 12, 2009 2:15 AM

About Michael Greeson

 

Michael Greeson
Founding Partner, Research
Executive Editor, OTT Monitor

Michael covers a variety of topics related to consumer technologies with a particular focus on broadband adoption, home networks, value-added fixed and mobile services, and the future of the "connected consumer." To date, Michael has authored or co-authored more than 50 reports on these topics. He is widely considered to be among the world's leading consumer technology and digital home analysts.

Michael graduated with honors from the University of Chicago, earning a Master's of Art in Interdisciplinary Social Science in which he blended studies in sociology, psychology, social theory, and philosophy. Prior to Chicago, Michael graduated with honors from the University of Central Oklahoma, earning a Bachelor's of Arts in Philosophy.