Page 6 - 22_Bafta Academy_John Malkovich_ok

first person
red for progress
Jonathan Webb argues that interactive TV must become more imaginative and immersive if it is to keep the public’s attention
“For me, the
red button is
about event
television,
it’s about the
programme
you are
watching.
It is not
about
enhanced text services.”
What makes good Interactive Television?
In my book it’s about intuitive services where you are already beginning to participate in your own mind. ‘I wish I could watch the action on court 2’; ‘I know the answer to that!’; ‘I wish I knew all the lyrics to this song’; ‘I won- der what my IQ is?’
All these moments underpin outstanding (and sometimes incredibly simple) examples of enhanced TV that add a new dimension to the linear broad- cast. What better examples of interactive television are there than Multi-Coloured Swap Shop and The Golden Shot?
But really immersive experi- ences in interactivity are still scarce. We really do have the ability to lead the world in inter- active formats if we can see beyond the issues that are cur- rently holding us back.
Interactivity is not about tech- nology (although you would be forgiven for thinking it was) nor is it about huge new revenue streams that promise to eclipse existing broadcast revenue mod- els. (not yet anyway). It is about creativity, viewers and, for the commercial broadcasters amongst us, working with adver- tisers to reach consumers in new and interesting ways.
So what’s wrong with Interactive Television?
‘Interactivity is not a need state or a customer benefit, nor is it the entry point into a pro- gramme.’ Viewers don’t watch a programme because of the inter- activity, they don’t need interac- tive services and they almost never use terms like ‘interactive’.
So what does this mean for interactive television as a whole, and how can we begin to unlock
the true potential of this so-called digital revolution?
The obvious place to start is with the language that our view- ers actually use. They don’t talk about ‘interactivity’ per se, but they can articulate what they value. At the most basic level are bite size services – interactive snacks – which are distracting and fill time before a favourite programme starts. Interactive games are an obvious and popu- lar example.
The next layer of interest and enjoyment is around ‘having a go’, control and voting. This is particularly resonant for younger audiences where control is a much-prized quality in a world where you rely on parents for money & lifts.
Then comes playalong game shows, which are about a person- al challenge and becoming part of the show, such as Challenge’s TV Scrabble.
And finally, viewers talk about extra video as a shared experi- ence, the reward of the expert view and behind the scenes, no doubt driven by some of the
excellent BBC video services launched over the last 18 months.
As you move up the pyramid you have increasingly immersive experiences where viewers can choose new ways of engaging with a story. But the central point is that you need to be emotional- ly connected to the show in the first place to actively participate in the programme.
Once viewers have made that connection they begin to intuitively interact with certain genres and its at this point that interactivity can be most powerful.
What happened to all the great ideas?
Forget technology, it’s a red herring. It’s about great ideas and engaging television. Too often we ask what a particular platform will enable us to do rather than focusing on those intuitive moments that will make a format more compelling.
Too often interactive teams sit outside the central process of programme making. If our goal is to create seamless participative TV events then we need to struc-
4