Agora Media Group Innovation Blog

Vizio, who say they are America’s fastest-growing HDTV and consumer electronics company, and headquartered in Irvine, California, have come out with an amazing video to push their HDTV line that is loaded with TV apps. The Vizio commercial features Beyonce, the Twitter bird, and Internet sensations Chocolate Rain, Numa Numa, and David After the Dentist. Watch in full screen if you can – this video has close to a million views already on Youtube and echoes of Apple’s legendary Macintosh commercial 1984, which also had a sweeping theme.

TV’s that are ‘app friendly’  come in 42, 47, and 55 inches and start at an affordable 900 euro.

Making waves in the US, the company racked up some impressive stats in 2009.

* VIZIO continues to add new innovative products to their portfolio such as Blu-ray® players, Home Theater Sound Bars with Wireless Sub, Motorized Wall Mounts and more.
* VIZIO launches 40 new HDTV models with sizes ranging from 19” to 55” and including the top technologies such as VIZIO Internet Apps their version of the internet connected TV, 240Hz LCD models and the latest TruLED technology which delivers the ultimate HD experience with less impact on our planet.
* #1 Shipper of LCD HDTVs in N. America Q1
* #1 Shipper of LCD HDTVs in United States Q2
* VIZIO is the official Sponsor of Super Bowl XLIII
* VIZIO HDTVs can be found on more store shelves than SONY in July 2009
* Over 160 employees

Tweet

by Gianluigi Cuccureddu & Richard Kastelein

Yes, what it will do at least, is shake up the TV industry and get them out of their “Walled Gardens”, and actively look for business model innovations.  Google has the potential, reach and money to penetrate the market with more than just a shake up. It will likely be cataclysmic… and they will truly launch the concept of Social and Connected TV into the Zeitgeist by 2011.

The rumour mill has once again ground out another flutter of gossip about Google going into the TV market – but still – nobody will go on record. This time it’s about when they will release their official foray into this space.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that:

Google Inc. is planning to introduce Android-based television software to developers at an event in May, according to people familiar with the matter.

Google is headhunting for developers in this space, which validates the buzz.

Android and Chrome both have substantial development communities, but it will likely take some time before investments are made from software developers – and it will come when Google can show a critical mass adaption. Until now, Yahoo Connected TV has been leading in this space, but interest in their Widget Development Kit (WDK) is rather tepid. Google TV’s future development kit (likely based on Android and Chrome),  won’t likely be wide open, but will surely be more flexible and malleable than Yahoo’s.

But other news on Google TV recently came with a report from the  Korean Herald,  who published an article about a possible marriage between the world’s leading TV manufacturer, Samsung, and Google TV. In other words, Samsung, who is already tied to Yahoo Connected TV is considering cutting another deal with Google and building CE devices with Android architecture.

Yahoo won’t be happy if this pans out – but they don’t seem to be able to develop much traction in attracting developers to this space, nor creating enough buzz about Social TV, TV Apps, Widgets etc.

Will hardware manufacturers lose their control? They might, if they don’t play ball, Google just might start producing TV’s themselves.

According to a quote from the same Korean Herald article

Chun Seung-hoon, an analyst at Eugene Investment & Securities, said Samsung’s Google TV is plausible, given that Google’s Android is an open platform. “There is no problem for Samsung to produce Google TVs,” he said. However, he said the hardware manufacturer faces the risk of losing its control over the TV market to Google, a software firm, should it make Google TVs. “This is not a good picture. I think it would be better for Samsung to expand its own platform Bada,“ he said.

Google’s perspective is from the software side, manufacturers is from the hardware perspective, and a complementary growth strategy for both sides is more plausible.

Expansion of its own mobile development platform Bada – Samsung could perhaps itself  head towards their own Social TV development and make a play for both a two screen and one screen experience.  People’s demand in the end is what will make or break a Walled Garden, in this case Bada, which already has an ample app store.

Already mentioned in one of my earlier analysis Television 2.0’s foremost challenge is… , consumer control and attention are essential in understanding the coming paradigm TV shift.

In the end, all that people want is any content at their time, on their screen when they’re in the mood. Creating a battle between open systems, from any kind of manufacturer, is a risk for growth strategies and revenue streams.

Going from the platform to the actual content consumption which will be enabled by Google Android TV, it will be interesting to see how this will develop and evolve.
On NewTeeVee, researcher Marie-José Montpetit at MIT’s Research Lab for Electronics, says that Social TV doesn’t mean a cluttering of content and widgets on the TV screen.

Google has the resources to analyse this in-depth, create understanding how the new television experience could be enhanced in appropriate ways, not a simple centralisation of different content on a screen.

There’s more than enough landscape on the next generation of TV’s to allow for optional widgets to be popped in and out, and if sized correctly,  a single screen experience can work. The widgets, from a design perspective, can and should be optional and can and should be designed to be part of the overall TV experience, if planned well. If they can get the Interactive Design down pat – getting ‘social’ on one screen can work. There are many examples of websites that have this kind of alternative.  Our blog has an optional widget for Twitter that can be pulled out and retracted quite nicely 0n the bottom right.

Here again the ultimate quest is to provide users control to gain their attention which will lead to -new- revenue models.

Apps/Widgets have been said to be the new Cash Cow generators for the digitized ubiquity, the syndication of content and the consumption of it. If Google and the industry will be able to go forth in the evolution of television and the experience, conventional revenue models could be proven not to be the only valid ones.

What do you think, will Google be able to get movement in this cumbersome sector?

The British Press is reporting that Hulu is giving up on the UK after months of fruitless dialogue with all the major UK broadcasters. What works smoothly in the US does not seem to cross the pond all that well with, what appears to be,  a lot of effort, but a little too late.

UK broadcasters such as ITV, Sky, Channel 4, and Five are all working on their own  catch-up technology or are already well into talks with other parties.

“…Channel 4 and Five have already signed third party deals with YouTube and SeeSaw and ITV isn’t playing ball,” states the Daily Telegraph technology report.

Ben McOwen Wilson, ITV’s director of online and interactive added in the article,

“Hulu is a major success in the US but the UK TV market is a different place. It is much more consolidated, which mean there are fewer online locations than in the US, which users need to visit to get access to their favourite content – therefore there is less need for aggregators.”

Hulu, as Gianluigi reported earlier this week, is rumoured to be putting in a subscription service into place soon in the US market.

“Ultimately, Hulu is expected to adopt the same commercial loads as network television.”

Network TV in the USA is horrifically unwatchable with broadcast stations allocating 16 to 21 minutes per hour to commercials. The model of driving people to subscription with interuption TV online might work – but will web viewers take it?  This model would certainly never work in Europe.

Somehow it feels like going backwards to adopt methodology from the old school broadcast world – they would have to be a lot more creative in converting European viewers who are used to watching reruns of Oprah with few interuptions and sans commercials every seven minutes on their normal TV – as they cut out most of the commercials.

Just after having written The super power of Word-of-Mouth Marketing post, Forrester analysts Josh Bernoff and Augie Ray presented statistics on the state of Word of Mouth Marketing.

A summary of the presentation can be read on Mashable, where it also explains the three different Word of Mouth Influencers.
In the so-called Peer Influence Pyramid the Social Broadcasters (at the top), Mass Influencers (middle), and Potential Influencers (bottom of the pyramid) define the three types of Influencers which, as a brand, you need to take into account. First to understand the dynamics how these three types of Influencers spread messages and influence.
Secondly, the create and reach the best as possible these three types in order to address all three.

The article further reports that people are making a staggering 500 billion influence impressions on one another. This is massive, business-driven advertising and influence is being challenged by these outside influences which bypass the brand but talk about that specific brand.
Why?
Because the Web is transparent, it centralizes content which has effect that in increases the influence of comments, ratings and such, much more than the offline equivalent Word of Mouth messages. These are fragmented and not “eternalized”. The Potential Influencers are the group of people where the real trust can be found. It’s also the largest portion of people. Exactly this group of Influencers can create a chain reaction, triggering friends’ friends and further on.

Mashable ends with

In summary, Bernoff and Ray’s advice to marketers includes:

Build a strategy for reaching all three types of influencers.

Allocate your budget in light of a potential 500 billion impressions of peer influence.

Analyze and reach out to your mass influencers specifically for maximum reach.

To make a step back, before building a strategy, reach mass influencers and allocate budget, brands first need to identify their Influencers. Without the identification, it’s harder to effectively reach and empower them.

What do you think of the Peer Influence Pyramid, are there types of Influencers that miss?

This afternoon you can amaze yourself on the Dam Square in Amsterdam, seeing all kinds of odd characters through your iPhone or Android.
3D digital statues can be seen with the Layar application.

This afternoon, at exactly 14:00h (GMT+1), the Dam Square won’t be what it normally is, the Square will be taken over by people who explore the square by means of Augmented Reality, holding up phones and investigating their surroundings.
I do wonder what the expressions will be of people who don’t know about the Augmented Reality Flashmob?

This idea comes from Sander Veenhof:

“Every square in every major city in the world knows the ‘human statue’ phenomenon. On the Dam Square in Amsterdam Darth Vader, Superman, a Gladiator and some undecipherable sort of gothic characters colour the scene.“

Visit the website to install the appropriate software and such in order to be part of this AR event.
The procedure is as following:

PROCEDURE FOR SATURDAY THE 24TH:

- prepare your phone with the right software, see left column
- iPhone users can download and use the Layar app to activate the flashmob AR view
- downloadable ‘human sculpture’ models will be available for Android phones
- to bring your own 3D model, create obj/mtl files and put them on an Android phone
- to do so, get the AndAR application from the market (* on 23rd of April)
- AR tags on the ground will be provided

All use the #ARFlashMob hashtag!
Looking forward to comments and experiences this afternoon.

Picked up this news from the LA Times blog.

It is not confirmed yet, but the blog mentions an subscription service of $9.95

“[...] according to people with knowledge of the plans.“

The subscription service should start on the 24th of May. Viewers will still be able to view the first couple of shows for free, but for additional shows needs to be paid.
At the end of the article, the mentioning of

“Ultimately, Hulu is expected to adopt the same commercial loads as network television.”

is interesting, because one of the differentiators is the load of commercials. If this will be within the same amounts of network televisions, a Hulu and other streaming video platforms need to position and gain an unique advantage through Content, social aspects etc. Of course syndication their content to devices like the iPhone and iPad could add value to their proposition as well.

Would you pay $9.95 to access a more comprehensive collection on Hulu?
What do you think of the advertising plans similar to existing television networks, are there other revenue models which generate the same or more and be less disruptive?

Yesterday I read an article on McKinsey Quarterly on a new way to measure Word-of-Mouth Marketing.
The Word-of-Mouth Equity as they call it is an interesting equation to further explore. Besides the quantification of Word-of-Mouth, the overall development and importancy pointed out by McKinsey is well explained.

There are Word-of-Mouth three forms marketers need to understand: Experiential, Consequential and Intentional Word-of-Mouth.
The Experiential is the true C2C marketing, whereas Consequential and Intentional Word-of-Mouth is a B2C2C marketing, where Word-of-Mouth is being orchestrated and promoted by the company in order to trigger their target group(s) for further viral the C2C distribution.

The Experiential Word-of-Mouth is the most powerful and trusted form, because it’s a direct experience of the product/service by the person, which then is being positively or negatively recommended. If it’s positive or negative depends on the gap between the expectation and experience of the product or service.
Here the thorough understanding must be present that Experiential Word-of-Mouth is forcing a paradigm shift in brand experience, it is what your target audience think your brand is, instead of a push perceivement.

The shift from a produced influence -solely- created by the company to a prosumerist or co-creational or even customer-driven influence can be seen clear in the image below:

A couple of points stand out in the image:

* In a developing market, Word-of-Mouth is the most powerful influencer in the customer decision journey. This has the advantage that the innovators and early adopters do act as evangelists, which trigger their peers to show similar behavior. The second advantage is that Word-of-Mouth is relatively cheaper than advertising tactics, being able to achieve a better margin or lower overall costs in the introduction phases.
Extensive information is not yet available, forcing consumers to rely faster on each other.
* In the mature market, Word-of-Mouth is less influential, this has part to do with the transforming market, also because advertising in mature markets and later phases in product life cycles require lots of advertising and other still “conventional” tactics to be able to compete in the mature market. It could be well that proportionally there were much more advertising touch points with the target audiences than the consumers amongst them, creating a lower percentage which blur results.

The second image below is the equation by McKinsey which shows an interesting perspective which can be applied to understand better how Word-of-Mouth impacts the brand and the causes, be it on any kind of device or channel, which I will elaborate later on.

Because media convergence is rigidly diffusing amongst (mobile) devices, companies need to overthink tactics twice before executing them, the power of consumers is huge, the hyperconnective society is updated nearly in real-time, making the companies vulnerable when actions are not well thought.
The Volume and Impact equals the Word-of-Mouth Equity.
The Impact is determined by four aspects, Network, Sender, Message Content and Message Source.
The Volume is of importance with regard to the reach per message, but it doesn’t determine the quality of the reach. From an utopian one-on-one marketing point of perspective, the smaller the reach is, but the better the quality is, due to personalized or relevant alignment between Sender, Message and Receiver.

Why is it important to understand the impact on media convergence?
Because it offers many opportunities for companies to granulate content (in the Consequential and Intentional Word-of-Mouth) to create a most effective trigger for their consumers per touch point, per channel.
Online communities grow, vertical networks with highly specialized topics and followers do grow.
Networks become interoperable, devices become interoperable, content can be requested via mobile, laptop, TV and iPad, “small” is relative and the impact is and will be forceful.

The advent of Social TV is only going to increase the power of Word-of-Mouth Marketing to new levels, creating new opportunities and challenging companies at the same time to understand, yet another channel used by consumers.
Think of what will happen if TV widgets (Twitter, Facebook and others) will enable real-time direct communication with their network to comment on the content which is being broadcasted?
Advertising, product placements, concepts, lots will be subject to consumer influence, instantly.

I do think the Word-of-Mouth Equity is worth the try in understanding what kind of messages will impact the brand more than others.
What’s your opinion on Word-of-Mouth Marketing?
Is the equation one that you would experiment with in understanding the dynamics of Word-of-Mouth?

YouTube envisions future of television viewing – William Cooper at informitv.com with more brilliant insight

If you aren’t a lucky recipient of Cooper’s emails, you can sign up for free here.

He’s simply one of the smartest guys in the Social TV and TV 2.0 landscape and always connects the dots in a brilliant fashion.

YouTube envisions future of television viewing – 18 April 2010

It is just five years since the first video was uploaded on YouTube by one of its founders. Now over 24 hours of video a minute are uploaded to the site and it receives over a billion views a day. YouTube has its sights set on turning a few minutes a day watching videos on the web to something more like the hours a day we generally spend watching television. That vision could become a reality once televisions are routinely connected to the internet.

“People think about the world of TV and the world of online video as being different ways to distribute video,” said Chad Hurley, the co-founder of YouTube, in an interview with the Telegraph newspaper. “But what happens when every TV is connected to wi-fi with a browser?”

“That is what we envision. Instead of this world of online video and this world of TV there is just one world,” he said. “There won’t be a difference in the future.”

“The iPad — is that a phone or a computer?” he questioned. “If I put it on my wall is it a TV? People continue to try to throw things in the buckets when really these are all going to be different-sized devices with a connection to the internet.”

Read full article here

ps: I am about to get my connected TV next week here in Holland. Fresh off the shelves a Samsung with Internet@TV so will be running some tests and shooting video next month. For Dutch readers, yes, there are Dutch Apps already developed. Eerste Nederlandse widgets op Samsung-tv’s

I came across a new patent which is filed by Apple on PatentlyApple.com.

It describes in detail what Apple how Apple is planning to revolutionize the current ticketing process, plus enhancing the event experience itself.
For further details, have a look at the article on PatentlyApple.com.

For me, two immediate questions arise.

Is Apple trying to smartly achieve a kind of All-you-need-is-the-iPhone state?
By centralizing processes and ascribing them to this device, a powerfull influence is created for the iPhone. Surely iTunes and it’s music is part of this move, but the centralized modus for the iPhone can of course be expanded to many other purposes as well.

Secondly, based on Porter’s Five Forces model, what will the impact be if Apple enters this business?
It certainly will put emphasis on the entry of a new player and the threat of substitute products/services. The patent refers to giving access to live recordings of the concert which visitors just attended or access to exclusive interviews. Who wouldn’t want this? It’s all additional and easy to access content, this will have consequences for other ticketing businesses who can’t offer this.
iTunes is a platform used by many, the bargaining power of customers will increase due to its innovative approach, raising the current intensity amongst existing players to outsmart Apple and “conventional” ticketing business.

Do you think the iPhone becomes the all-in-one-device?
If this will happen, how do you see the future or developments of the ticketing industry?

Interesting to have read the news that Boxee is looking for a Lead iPad and iPhone App Developer.
Their starting point is that they “consider ‘other screens’ as important as TVs for enjoying video.”
Signs of a furthering media convergent consumption continues.

I’m interested in seeing if and how they will differentiate the iPhone and iPad application in comparison to their television application. The iPhone screen isn’t too big, this might devaluate the watching experience. Maybe the focus of the iPhone application has a more social focus, whereas the iPad is a great substitution for the television screen?

What do you think the distinction between television, mobile and tablet will be?

For those who don’t know Boxee, check out this video taken from their website: