THE FUTURE OF
TELEVISION
REVEALED
IN TEN STEPS
Introduction By Dom Serafini
CONTRIBUTORS:
Len Grossi, Ettore Botta, Blair Westlake, Barry Frey,
Jon E. Currie, Luca F. Cadura, Steve Schiffman,
Edoardo Fleischner, Michael Liebhold, Dom Serafini
A Preview of VideoAge’s October 2015 Issue
Sotto l’Alto Patronato del Presidente della Repubblica Italiana | Sotto l’Egida della Presidente della Rai
PRIX
ITALIA
IL POTERE DELLE STORIE
IL LABORATORIO DELLA CREATIVITÀ
CONCORSO INTERNAZIONALE PER LA RADIO, LA TELEVISIONE E IL WEB
TORINO 19/24 SETTEMBRE 2015
THE FUTURE OF TELEVISION REVEALED IN TEN STEPS
Introduction By Dom Serafini
The future is coming like a German Panzer, but for some strange reason, few seem ready for it or ready to evolve with it. Indeed, no
one can prevent it, and we never know when it will come. That said, the future can come in handy even before it arrives. When there’s
uncertainty about what to do, thinking about the future could bring an immediate solution.
With the 10 forthcoming predictions, VideoAge analyzes every level of a 10-step staircase leading to the future of television: Free broadcast and
cable TV, advertising, Internet and broadband, content, international content sales, regulations, technology, audience, branding and finally, the predictions themselves. History is full of miscalculated predictions made by experts and visionaries: “Man will never reach the moon, regardless
of all future scientific advances,” Lee DeForest, one of the inventors of television, said in 1967. “There is a world market for maybe five computers,” Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, said in 1943.
Over the years, prediction periods got shorter — those made in the
1800s span some 100 years, while in the 1990s they were limited to 50 years, in the early 2000s they were 25 years, and now
they’re just 15 years — because of fast technological changes.
These 10 steps also distinguish between “predictions” and “forecasts,” wherein the former are long-term (15 years) and based on
beliefs, and the latter are short-term (five years) and based on analysis and statistics. Some of the topics, all interrelated like the steps of
a staircase, are listed below along with the authors of the predictions.
Len Grossi
Where will content production money come from?
Will we return to sponsored and branded content as in the early years of commercial television?
What will the role of public television production be?
Will the back-end still exist?
Will theatrical release still exist?
Will production costs increase or decrease?
Where will producers be coming from?
Ettore Botta
Will international sales of content be conducted solely online?
What will the future of trade shows and conferences be?
Are virtual trade shows a thing of the past or the future?
1
Q&A with Blair Westlake
What will happen to FTA television?
Will cable TV become just a fat “pipe” for broadband, with content being transported via IPTV?
Will there be such a thing as free TV anymore?
With increased poverty levels, why would “free” TV lose out?
Will FTA depend on live events?
Is the future of localism (emergencies and local news) tied to FTA?
Is linear television a thing of the past?
Will TV stations continue to utilize over-the-air spectrum?
Q&A with Barry Frey
Will TV advertising fully migrate to online video?
Will the critical mass only be obtained by aggregating web media?
Will advertisers still need the critical mass?
What will the role of ad agencies be? What will happen when media inventory greatly surpasses demand?
Will media advertising change the retail business?
Do you predict today’s unforeseen events in advertising?
Interview with Jon E. Currie
In 2030 will audiences still reach critical masses?
Will critical mass die with linear television?
If critical masses are still reached, how will these critical masses be achieved (e.g., time-shifted L7)?
In a pull video environment (Vs. the traditional push TV services), when will the critical mass be declared (in
a week, like the current L7; in a month)?
Will the rise of VoD in its various forms (e.g., SVoD, TVoD, FVoD, PVoD, etc.) change the nature of the audience to deliver to advertisers?
Will niche television increase fragmentation or reduce it?
Will Internet interactivity eliminate the need for rating services?
In 2030, will demographics still count or will psychographics be the norm (with demographic, viewers could
have the same income, but different lifestyles and education)?
2
Luca F. Cadura
Will branding continue to be queen?
In the past, viewers watched content and not channels, later they looked at the brand, which became queen
to content’s king.
What will the role of brands be?
In a sea of brands, which ones will emerge?
What will be the threshold to be declared a brand (e.g., can 100,000 consumers make a brand)?
Steve Schiffman
Will regulations be necessary or even enforceable?
Can content be regulated for obscenity, violence and security?
Can regulations still generate technical and moral standards?
Edoardo Fleischner
What is the next media that technology will render obsolete?
What is technology promising?
After the demise of records, cassettes (both audio and video), super 8-mm film and DVD, what will disappear next
(aside from the expected doomed print media)?
Will 3D be a reality after 8K TV?
How will data be stored and old digital data retrieved?
Interview with Michael Liebhold
Technology alone will not solve the Internet security problem. Is it possible that ICANN will get involved
and create Internet zones that are not automatically interconnected? (In this case, a Russian or Chinese user
would have to ask permission to reach a user in another zone).
Is there a secure way to prevent online wars?
Will the Internet become standardized and compatible? (Meaning that older systems will be able to work
with new systems and vice-versa). Radio and TV sets built in the ’40s still work today.
Will a combination of more pipes and better compression make broadband sufficient for the growing Internet traffic?
Will broadband still be based on a subscription model?
Will the Internet be protected from nuclear electromagnetic pulses?
Dom Serafini
How accurate can predictions be? In 1860 experts predicted the demise of NYC due to the large amount of
horse manure, which was a problem in that era.
Are today’s experts also using current parameters to wrongly predict the future?
3
FILM, TV PRODUCTION FINANCE TO FOLLOW A PREDICTABLE PATTERN
By Len Grossi
Where will production money come from 15 years from now? The answer is very simple: from the people of the world. One way or
another, it all comes down to viewers, shoppers and subscribers. The U.S. studios will get the money they need to develop and produce from a variety of license fees, royalties, branded content and sponsored content.
Looking into the future, direct TV programming sales to Hulu, Amazon, Netflix and the like will be offering up to 200 percent of production costs because they will then own and control the global rights to distribute that programming to consumers forever.
People will continue to finance development and production, just through different channels. This development will negatively affect
all global distribution opportunities and will affect broadcast and cable industries. The cable companies know this too, which is why
their current model is to control as much broadband as possible. They know that is how programming will be delivered in the future.
Major feature films will still go to theaters, for that experience is very hard to duplicate. There will be a simultaneous release to home
video, in whichever form home video is defined. Financing for feature films will continue to come from the public as well, who go
to see the features on a global basis, and then from all ancillary sources. Features will not be initially exhibited on Netflix and other
streaming services. For the features, Netflix et al is actually part of the back end.
In the case of features, even more so than TV, embedded content will continue to play a financial role as it has in the past. TV will
benefit as well, but there is always an argument as to who has the right to those funds: are they ad dollars or contributions to production costs?
Films will continue to be produced on spec. People with lots of money love showbiz and companies love to raise money from people
who want to be in showbiz. So, production funding from individual companies and individual entrepreneurs will produce films on spec.
Production costs will increase, but this relates to those productions done under union rules. They have built-in increases in their agreements. Even when the business slowed down and the writers strike hit hard, overall costs continued to rise. The U.S. guilds and ASCAP/BMI have already begun negotiating for the productions going directly to Netflix and the like, so they will be unionized as well.
Other non-union productions and digital productions will bring those costs down. Producing in right-to-work U.S. states and Canada
will help offset those costs, but the actual costs will increase. All of the costs will not come out of the producers’ pocket, however.
Costs will continue to be shared among production companies, but only on very big films or those films where it helps to manage the
potential risks, and only on rare occasions.
Subscription outlets will have better content than ad-supported outlets.
Subscription outlets have been putting up some pretty successful, well-produced and compelling content. For years the ad-supported
outlets have had the best and most creative minds coming to them with ideas backed by studios with very deep pockets, able to finance the production of those big ideas; but the subscription outlets will not be ordering millions of dollars worth of scripts, billions
of dollars worth of pilots and then selecting what they believe is the best of the best. The process for the subscription outlets will be
very specific and very targeted.
Branded and sponsored content is something that is always being experimented with. Integrated programming and features will continue until they no longer achieve the desired results. Branded and sponsored content will continue to evolve and will always be a big
part of helping to reduce costs of production and promoting and advertising a brand. This trend will also become more sophisticated.
As for agencies becoming producers, they have been doing that unofficially for ages via packaging. Officially, agencies are prohibited
from developing and producing programs and feature films in order to maintain their agency status. They also have created investment
4
companies to invest in properties so as to participate in the proceeds (and not only take a percentage of the talent’s income). Major
agencies sign exclusive deals with their clients and part of the reason is to take advantage of the practice of “packaging” projects,
which amounts to maximizing the agency’s commissions by developing projects that include as many of their own clients as possible.
For example, ICM Partners packaged a number of the most successful TV shows ever, including Friends, The Simpsons and Breaking
Bad to name a few. By representing writers, executive producers, actors and showrunners, the agency is able to make significantly
more money by participating in above and below the line, and in back-end participation in perpetuity from all sources. Agencies will
continue to reinvent themselves to maximize the potential returns they can earn on various projects.
Crowdfunding will continue to grow, but not in any meaningful way (i.e., studio- level crowdfunding). Right now, crowdfunding provides an investment opportunity, but mainly to brag and say “I am in the film (or TV) business.” There are three forms of crowdfunding: donation, reward and equity. Equity is where the serious investors will participate. Getting a film made is very different from getting one made and then widely distributed. Feature film financing is a potentially lucrative endeavor, but also extremely risky, and
crowdfunding could not be sustained for a TV series.
As for public television production (taking U.S. Public Broadcasting Service as an example), program funding will continue to flourish. Their revenue flow is safe and secure, not subject to ratings, and their programming is very high quality and expertly produced.
Internationally, most PBS stations are government funded. Some of them are also donation-centric and can sell advertising. In the annals of U.S. broadcasting, they have a trifecta: ad revenue, donations and government funding. Their programming reaches a wide
audience that is very loyal, and PBS provides excellent programming to both kids and over-50 demos.
Len Grossi is CEO of Los Angeles-based Baseline Media & Entertainment. He’s a former
president of Columbia TriStar Television, a division of Sony Pictures Entertainment. Grossi
was also responsible for Telemundo and for overseeing SPE’s Telemundo investment; he was
a board member of Telemundo and Game Show Network. Prior to joining Sony, he served
on the board of Film Roman, iBeam Broadcasting Network, and Protozoa. Earlier, he was
SEVP at United Paramount Network. He segued to UPN from his post as EVP at Twentieth
Television. Grossi served as EVP and CEO of Metromedia Producers Corp. prior to its acquisition by Fox. Previously, he was VP, Finance and Administration for Paramount Pictures’ television and video distribution division.
5
VIRTUAL TRADE SHOWS HAVE MERITS AND TIME WILL PROVE THEM RIGHT
By Ettore Botta
Usually on MIPCOM opening days, huge crowds of attendees would gather impatiently at the door of the Palais waiting for it to open,
ready to rush to their first meeting. If these exciting moments belong to the past, then what is the future of international TV content sales?
Internet technologies have impacted all businesses, not just television. For example, nowadays, before a large real estate company breaks
ground to build a development, they model the entire community online. Then, they bring other realtors into the virtual software and give
online tours to pitch pre-sales to foreign investors.
This is now happening not only with the real estate business, but also with other industries, such as cosmetics, automobile, publishing,
merchandising and eventually with TV trade shows.
There have already been attempts to create virtual online markets for international TV and film content sales business, yet none of
these have had much success among buyers and vendors.
Germany’s Grant Raynham, a buyer/consultant, commented: “Virtual markets are good for an overview, yet they lack the personal
interfacing needed in closing a deal.”
The general idea is that even in 2030, trade shows will be important for the direct, personal contact between buyers and sellers, which
is hard to replace. In addition, acquisition and sales executives feel much more appreciated by their company when they are sent to
trade shows in exotic places like Cannes, Miami or Singapore. It is almost a working vacation.
However, online virtual markets have already replaced the mechanical side of sales. Therefore, companies can now allot less cash to
spend on traditional markets and conventions. It is clear that companies will have much more return for their dollars online, and even
better online marketing is measurable and predictable.
But can the digital environment really displace brick and mortar events, where personal meetings can justify the expensive registration, strategically located booth, fees and travel costs? Rick Feldman, former CEO of the NATPE international TV trade show, expects
that conventional markets will never disappear: “Of course sales won’t migrate online and of course trade shows are here to stay.”
Similarly, Greg Kimmelman, founder and CEO of Global Telemedia, a TV content distribution company in Boston, said, “Markets are
a place to see [or meet] someone face to face, shake their hand and get an opportunity that surpasses emails and even telephone
calls. A personal meeting at a market can make all the difference with the transaction. I firmly believe [a traditional trade show] is a
necessary part of our business and will continue.”
Dom Serafini, VideoAge editor, added “While traditional trade shows benefit from personal contacts (which is an essential component of the entertainment industry), virtual trade shows don’t have added value, since buyers can easily get all the information on
the sellers own website. Plus, the conference component of a traditional trade show, even if it reduces floor traffic, increases the opportunity to establish relationships.”
However, even at a virtual trade show, there are realistic-looking halls with booths for showcasing TV content. The buyers can view demos,
pick up literature and chat with sales representatives in real time. Keynote speeches and seminars are delivered in real time or on-demand,
creating a synergy that standalone companies’ websites can’t match.
While buyers can get information from a seller’s website, it is time consuming to search for websites and companies that might have
the TV program or series they are seeking. A virtual market allows buyers to search for products in a much more effective way, and
sellers to showcase their content to buyers who do not attend markets because of budget or travel constraints.
The notion that websites can showcase a seller’s content just as well as virtual markets will not be true for much longer. First of all,
new virtual technologies, especially 3D, have increased the potential for sellers to find new clients from a virtual market. If they wish,
6
buyers can link directly from the virtual booth to the seller website. In addition, with traditional trade shows, buyers cannot physically
cover 100 percent of the market floor and visit very booth in just two or three days. From the comfort of their office, however, they
can cover the entire virtual market and visit every single virtual booth.
Participating in an online market may not be an adequate substitute for a personal meeting, lunch or drinks with a key client. However, virtual market platforms will offer values that never existed in the traditional market conventions before — for example the seller
can be actively present with their entire content catalog in a market 365 days a year.
Another advantage is that the seller is able to connect with a much larger and more global audience, many of whom might not have
attended a conventional market. It is already possible for buyers and sellers to discuss TV programs and their availability on Skype,
send a online link to a screener, negotiate and close a license deal in little more than an hour. The same opportunity to close a deal in
such a short time during a conventional market has its challenges, due to the under-half-hour duration of meetings and the time constraint for buyers to screen programs at the sellers’ booth.
For Grant Raynham, “the future will be a combination of fewer live markets and more virtual markets.” The decline in attendance at
traditional conferences and trade shows over the past few years has been attributed not only to financial problems, but also to factors
such as fears of pandemic flus and terrorist attacks.
As Alessandro De Rossi, CEO of Medianetwork Communications, a content distribution company in Italy explained, “buyers, content
distributors and producers have always embraced the idea of virtual trade markets, it was the Internet and virtual technology itself
that was not yet ready for them.”
Ettore Botta is president of SpaceWoW, a production and distribution company based in Los
Angeles since 2001, and VP Marketing and Business Development for Speech Morphing, an
entertainment media technology company. In 2011 he launched GEM.com, a virtual content market that suspended service in 2014. Previously, he was VP Marketing and Sales at
Sandra Carter Global, where he was executive producer for Hollywood Reporter TV weekly series. Botta began his career in 1972 as director cameraman for UPITN and ITN in South
Africa and Swedish TV in Latin America. He also produced programs for BBC in the former
Soviet Union and directed and produced educational documentaries for National Geographic
in Africa, North America, Europe and Latin America.
7
THE DEMISE OF FTA IS ASSURED, AS IS THE CHANGING NATURE OF FREE-TV
Q & A with U.S. media strategist Blair Westlake on the future of free-to-air television:
if it will survive, the nature of that survival, how it will be reborn and its metamorphosis.
What will happen to FTA television?
In 2030, many territories in the world will have migrated away from using precious spectrum to transmit television broadcasts. Even
today, nearly all homes receive free-to-air TV by means other than actual broadcast (e.g. in the U.S., more than 90 percent of households subscribe to cable, satellite or Telco-provided video services).
Spectrum auctions in the U.S. are fast approaching, and there is simply too much money at stake from selling off spectrum for most
broadcasters to pass up. In 2030, broadcasting over-the-air will be a distant memory.
Not only will other transport means be used to deliver FTA TV, but linear TV as we know it today will migrate to an entirely on-demand offering.
Services such as Netflix have set expectations by consumers at a high bar: expectations that must be met by competitors or be doomed
to oblivion. Heading into 2030, FTA channels will have no choice but to match Netflix’s formula for access on any connected device.
Netflix’s success goes beyond its content, to its ease of access, and the selection of programming on-demand — to accommodate
viewers’ schedule (and not vice versa). That has driven Netflix to record subscriber levels.
Will there be such a thing as free TV anymore?
Free TV, as we know it in the U.S. and in many international territories, will disappear by 2030 — and more likely by 2020. If a
free-TV service cannot afford to produce or acquire the content consumers want to view, it won’t be able to compete or survive, and
will simply vanish as we are seeing with printed newspapers.
The means for more accurately measuring viewership (thanks to technology advances) will finally blow the lid off of CPM’s for adsupported channels — and prices will drop precipitously.
Just as cable unbundling will wipe away subsidies paid to weak channels today — which only exist because they were crammed
down cable operator’s throats by their owners as part of carriage deals in the past — so, too, will the entire advertising mechanism
that has existed since the early days of television. That will mean vast, and in some cases, painful changes for the TV sector.
With increased poverty levels in the U.S., why would “free” TV lose out?
Access to Internet has become as essential to everyone as having water, electricity and telephone services. For children in low-income
households, education is seriously impeded if those children cannot access the Internet from home.
For many years, residential telephone customers in the U.S. were subsidized by business customers, as a means of ensuring that every household could have a dial tone, regardless of what it cost to run copper wire to the home. However, U.S. regulators — the FCC
and other governmental agencies — have been slow to impose broadband build-out and low-cost, subsidized, Internet offerings as
part of big acquisitions. But, with the FCC’s approval of AT&T’s acquisition of DirecTV, it imposed on AT&T various broadband build-out
requirements as conditions of approving the deal. It’s unlikely that free TV will even hold a candle to the rich resources the Internet
can offer to low-income households.
Plus, aside from local news, the fare of most free-to-air channels today is lagging so far behind that the justification for keeping free
TV channels going for community information purposes will be impossible to make.
Does FTA’s survival hinge on live events?
The proliferation and use of the DVR has meant that live TV is the only programming that broadcasters can sell to advertisers in which
ads cannot be skipped. Live events that drive large audiences will continue to be the most desirable programming for FTA broadcasters and cable channels. The broadcast of live events on TV are in three narrow buckets today: news, sports and awards shows. It’s
8
unlikely any of these genres of programming will ever be viewed on delayed transmissions.
The cost of rights to sports and awards shows has increased by staggering amounts over the past few years, particularly for sports.
While most of the licensees of this programming are referred to as free-to-air services, the word “free” is a misnomer. FTA broadcasters
wouldn’t have a chance of paying, or recouping, multi-billion dollar license fees without retransmission consent payments (at around
one dollar per household), and hefty advertising rates.
Is the future of localism (emergencies and local news) tied to FTA?
While FTA channels have been a means of communicating weather alerts and similar emergencies, there are alternatives that are
many times more effective.
Mobile phone ownership in the U.S. is on par with the penetration of wire-line phones 20 years ago. Notification of emergencies via
TV is only as reliable as someone having the TV on and actually watching it. While broadcasters still have FCC imposed obligations for
emergency broadcasts, that will be supplanted by use of mobile phone networks.
At the moment, Apple has concluded that taking Apple TV to the next level requires giving consumers access to their local channels,
both network affiliates and independent stations. At least for the foreseeable future, local programming, particularly news for the older demographic, may be a must-have to move the needle on Apple TV sales. Should Apple TV be successful securing those rights, it
may be welcome news for a category of consumers. But data shows that the under-30 audience, for the most part, does not watch
over-the-air TV, thus the long term impact for FTA channels may be short-lived.
Will cable TV become just a fat “pipe” for broadband, with content being transported via IPTV?
As the margins on video services continue to shrink for cable providers, little by little, many will migrate away from the hassles of acquiring content and the associated costs, and simply offer data pipes as their primary service.
Some of the most popular video services today are offered solely over-the-top (OTT), where the cable providers are not even involved
with how the consumer subscribes and accesses the content. We have seen that change start off slowly, but more services, such as
CBS, HBO Now and Showtime, are following suit.
When we move to a truly á la carte world, which is inevitable even before 2030, many channels will disappear simply because the
artificial subsidy they receive today (thanks to cable bundling) will be gone. Traditional channels, those delivered via cable, will only
shrink in quantity, as OTT programming services — direct-to consumer offerings — will proliferate. The cable TV pipe will be a means
to receive video programming, but in most cases, separate and apart from an offering from the cable provider.
Blair Westlake is a media strategist who began his career as an attorney in the law department at MCA and rose to become Chairman of Universal Television and Networks Group.
From 2004 to 2014, he was Microsoft Corporation’s liaison with the global media and entertainment.
9
ADVERTISING, AD AGENCIES IN SEARCH OF THE CRITICAL MASS
Q&A with Barry Frey, president and CEO of the New York City-based Digital Place Based Advertising Association.
Will TV advertising fully migrate to online video?
The likely term won’t be “online” or “TV;” it will be “video.” Viewers won’t distinguish or care who is providing the content. It’ll just be
“video.” So with regard to the question of whether TV advertising will fully migrate to online video, in 2030 we will be looking at the
more agnostic descriptor “video advertising,” which will have various sub-sets, i.e., home video screen, mobile devices, tablets, digital
place based, laptops, and so on.
The ad agencies will be all-in on a video agnostic world. The issue of video agnostic planning will be the subject of a prominent debate at the Digital Place Based Advertising Association’s (DPAA) annual Video Everywhere Summit in New York City this November 3.
Will the critical mass be obtained only by aggregating web media?
There is no question that audiences will continue to become more diffused between now and 2030. And with more types of viewing
devices will come more audience diffusion.
So, there’s no question that advertisers will need to aggregate various types of video media to attain something close to critical mass.
But I wouldn’t use the phrase “aggregating web media” because it’ll be more an issue of aggregating video platforms.
Will advertisers still need the critical mass?
By 2030, it’s likely that advertisers will have the type of targeting capabilities they can only dream of today. With technology, data
and targeting ability gaining such great ground, advertisers will achieve “mass viewership” from only their intended targeted audience. But, at the same time, there will always be some marketers — consumer packaged goods companies (e.g., breakfast cereals)
among others — who need to reach large scaled audiences, or whatever will constitute critical mass in 2030 (everything is relative,
so the bar for critical mass likely will be lower in 2030 than it is now, given the greater fragmentation of audiences). The challenge
will be to successfully aggregate various video platforms.
What will the role of ad agencies be?
This is an important question for today, 2030 and beyond. Will advertising agencies look more like consulting firms, since their role
as “agent” is decreasing? Will media companies like Google take on more of the planning, buying and data functions held by the
agencies today?
We may see media companies taking on more of the creative and production of advertising as native advertising blends into the fabric. “Math Men” will probably displace Mad Men in the short term but in the future we may see a closer melding of disciplines as data
will inform creative strategy more aggressively.
What will happen when media inventory greatly surpasses demand?
The fundamental nature of supply and demand will be exactly the same as it is today. It’s difficult to imagine that media inventory
will ever “greatly” surpass demand because the marketplace will keep it in check. In other words, if I were to launch what we would
now call a website or TV network in 2030 and my business model was dependent on generating ad revenue, my inventory would either be desirable or it wouldn’t, and my ad rates and revenue would either be high enough to sustain my business or they wouldn’t.
So it will be survival of the inventory fittest, which is really no different than it is today. Supply and demand dynamics really won’t allow for an extreme volume of excess media inventory.
The only other factor is that technology will continue to develop a wide range of consumer services attached to media. These envisaged products and services will drive subscription service fees that could complement or supplant ad revenues in some cases.
10
Will media advertising change the retail business?
It’s not so much media advertising that will change the retail business as much as it is technology that will — and already is —
changing it. Earlier this year, DPAA, The Store WPP (a leader in advertising and marketing services with offices in Chicago and London)
and Intel teamed up to publish a White Paper on this very subject. We called it “Connecting Media, Technology and Brands To Tomorrow’s Consumer,” because it examined the critical importance of retailers using technology to connect with consumers, who now demand the same type of relationships and personalization that they can get on the web.
And, rest assured, this expectation will increase exponentially by 2030. As we wrote in the White Paper, seismic changes are significantly affecting brands as they move through the retail system. We observed that some progress is being made by store and network
operators to help brands engage with consumers but more needs to be done to make the consumer experience relevant, personal,
measured and secure — and in essentially real time.
Of course, IOT (The Internet of Things) also will be part of our lives, connecting humans, wearables, stores, brands and the whole
shopping experience. The capability already exists to target shoppers with addressable ads and alert consumers of relevant sales.
That’s where we are seeing major change in the retail business, and it’s what will cause the face of retail to look quite different in
2030 than it does today. As important as advertising is for retailers — and will continue to be in 15 years — it’s the technology
element that will cause the biggest changes, by far. [The full white paper can be found at http://www.dp-aa.org/ResourcesWPPIntelDPAAWhitePaper.php].
Do you predict unforeseen events in advertising?
By definition, “unforeseen” means something no one sees coming, so I suppose if I successfully predict something here and it comes
to pass, then it wasn’t unforeseen. Quite the conundrum! One thing I know for sure is that as much as technology advances, it will
always be the ingenuity and creativity driven by human beings that will change the paradigms. Visionary leaders in media, tech and
advertising will drive new and exciting paths forward.
Barry Frey is president and CEO of the New York City-based Digital Place Based Advertising Association (DPAA) since May 2013. DPAA provides industry leadership to networks,
technology, content and research companies, and connects the ecosystem to the advertising marketplace. DPAA’s annual Video Everywhere Summit is the premier conference dedicated to video media planning and marketer’s use of multi-screen strategies. Before joining
DPAA, Frey was chief revenue officer for Cablevision’s Digital and Advanced Bdvertising business. He was senior advisor for the Investment Bank, Sonenshine Partners and, earlier, he
was managing director International Sales and Business Development, USA Networks and,
previously, SVP Media for the National Basketball Association, reporting to the NBA Commissioner.
11
LASER-GRAPHING TV AUDIENCES:
RATING SERVICES WILL NOT BE COUNTING HEADS
Rating services will still be around in 2030, predicts media analyst and TV market researcher
Jon E. Currie, who now runs Currie Communications.
“The industry will still need someone to put viewership from all platforms
together,” he said from his Palm Desert, CA office. However, Currie pointed out that AC Nielsen, today’s dominant rating service needs an “industry
disrupter” to turn it from re-active to pro-active. “For example, out of home
viewing is not measured: today we still cannot get that integrated measurement.”
In Currie’s view, Nielsen serves the survival needs of the television industry,
“Personally, I don’t give a damn about public opinion,
which is still the dominant medium and “the dominant medium always reit’s my private opinion that runs this organization!”
sists new media, and history can prove it. The movie industry resisted television, the studios resisted videocassettes, the record industry resisted the
Internet, and so on.”
But, will Internet interactivity eliminate the need for rating services? “We have to begin thinking of what a ‘rating service’ will look
like in the future,” said Currie. “There will always be a need for metrics, but the metrics, their applications and their uses will change.
Think of the transition from TV to online video. What do they have in common? They both need viewers. Someone looks at it, or consumes it in some way, yet the form of it is different. It is the same with ratings. The measurement of the merged media will be a different model, but still a measurement in some form.”
So, how will the Internet improve and facilitate the gathering of ratings data? “This becomes the ROAT, or the ratings of all things, as
in the IOT or Internet of Things. The technology is here, it just needs combining into one metric that makes sense for both the seller
(producer, provider, etc.) and the buyer (agency, end client, etc.). Instead of ‘there were 150,000 uniques on YouTube and 250,000
18-49s on FOX, and 85,000 mobile users on iPhone, etc.,’ we’ll get ‘75,000 interested buyers of your new car who are female,
make over $50,000 a year, live in apartments in the inner part of cities on the East Coast, are single, professional, have at least a
college degree, shop at Macy’s, etc., and saw your message sometime today between 2pm and 3pm.’ We can do this now, it’s just
putting it together and getting away from the current models,” Currie said.
In the future rating services will no longer be counting heads, but will track viewers’ purchases and go beyond demographics and
psychographics, toward what Currie calls laser-graphics. “Reaching the 18-to-34 doesn’t mean anything, since it can mean a lot of
things,” he then pointed out that “the likely purchaser can be 23, 30 or 50 years old.”
“This micro-targeting is already used in political campaigns, where dual messages -— broad and narrow — are used, but broad messages are no longer effective,” said Currie.
The television industry has to define what “mass audience” really is and how it can be obtained, says Currie. Currently, a critical mass
is obtained by combining live audience plus those viewers who watch the same program within seven days (L7).
In the future, the predominant VoD model (which in Currie’s opinion is not different from today’s L7) will change the definition of mass audience with an increased cut off time for serialized drama (e.g., 30 days) and a reduced time (e.g., only live) for major sporting events like
the World Football (Soccer) Championship. “After all,” he commented, “who wants to see a sporting event a week later?”
“In effect,” said Currie, “the metrics will be tailored to who receives the message, not according to how it is being transmitted. After all, who
cares how it is transmitted? The data will include all platforms, and there will be different types of metrics for different types of programs.
Plus, in the case of serialized drama, advertisers will be able to change their commercials within the same episode viewed at different times.”
12
At this point of the interview, VideoAge wondered if niche television would increase or reduce fragmentation. This is because by increasing the TV universe to 1,000-plus channels, viewers tend to restrict their selections to a dozen or so TV networks. In addition,
the ratings of most niche channels combined only reach small numbers, leaving the bulk of the viewers to the usual dozen, even if
their large numbers are achieved with L7.
Currie’s analysis was that “niche is the very definition of fragmentation” and that “there is not mass audience programming anymore
(other than sports), but, since those usual dozen channels also own most of the niche channels, they can therefore bulk the audiences
up and, by grouping all kind of audiences from all their channels, they will deliver the mass audience to advertisers.”
He then concluded by stating, “Every type of technology that is out there now was developed 15 years ago,” meaning that technology to be used in 2030 is here today.
Jon E. Currie is a Ph. D. Major in Mass Communications Behavior and Research from
Bowling Green State University, Ohio, who now runs Currie Communications, a market research firm based in Palm Desert, CA. Previously, he was Vice President Head of Business
Development at Media Predict, Inc., responsible for sales and marketing effort of prediction
market start-ups. Before that, Currie headed Business Development for Satyam Market Research and Customer Analytics. He was also Regional Manager, Arbitron Ratings Television,
responsible for the U.S. Pacific region. Currie started his career as Director of Research, at
ASI Market Research, Los Angeles, CA, in 1981.
13
BRANDS TO BECOME EXPRESSION OF VALUES AND WAY OF LIVING
By Luca Federico Cadura
Where does branding come from? What does it stand for nowadays? And what will it stand for tomorrow?
The technique of branding is probably as old as the world. It was surely developed and grown in the military and political fields. Branding has changed a lot over the centuries and even in the last decade, and will change even more in the next 15 years.
Since the beginning of its time, up until the Web became our daily playground, branding has relied on a few simple rules. Some of
them are still true today (and will be in the future); others have changed significantly.
As life is becoming more and more complex, simply recognizing a brand will not be enough. A big, bold, well-known logo will only
be the starting point. Brands will have to become more and more an expression of values and way of living: an entity consumers can
easily relate to, not just a commercial transaction. Wearing a brand means expressing a specific way of life, or joining a tribe with specific rules. Brands must come with life-wide values and statements.
In the hyper-connected world of tomorrow, the old-fashioned hedonistic way of proposing brands doesn’t work. Having a fancy shirt
with a crocodile on the chest only works if the crocodile means more than just quality and design. Being a good product was enough
in the old world. Tomorrow, consumers will want to know more about this flag: they want to know what kind of values are represented and proposed by that brand.
In order for a brand to emerge in a growing competitive scenario, it must have a strong personality, a point of view on everything
and it has to answer:
• Is the way the product is produced aligned with the consumers’ lifestyle and beliefs?
• Is the producing company respected by its employees?
• What is the position of the company on some strategic themes, like environment or inclusion?
Traditionally, brands were all about consistency, color palettes, fonts and dimensions. Marketers believed that this consistency was
needed to show authority and get respect. In the future, context will be everything and the more the brand aligns with the specific
situation, the better. Brands will no longer pretend to be accepted as they are.
On the contrary, the same logo will be different in different places, on different targets, on different media or in a different environment.
In the future, every consumer will have the chance to relate with the brands one-on-one. While in the past it was “special” to get in
touch with your favorite brand beyond the consuming experience, now the expectation is a relation on the same level. Every day, consumers will become more aware of their power. The growth of social media will bring extra pressure on the companies, as customers
will expect real-time reaction to their inputs.
If the brand is about a lifestyle, we’ll see the brand’s presence in as many fields and markets as possible. It’s more than just brand
extensions, it’s living the specific moment according to the brand’s personality.
The brand will be built in harmony with the company and the customers. Indeed, the brand must belong to both the company and the
consumer. It’s the same path as moving from monarchy to democracy. The marketing department will be less focused on defining the
product guidelines and more on understanding the customer’s sentiment.
So, 15 years from now, will branding still be key in the media world? Yes, and even more so than today. This is because the commercial and relationship world will become more and more complex. Platforms, languages, systems; everything will be multiplied and
our brands will need to be everywhere.
If linear (or appointment) TV still exists or is still viable in 15 years, it will be thanks to branding, which will contribute to its continued existence by signaling identity, positioning, benefits and roles of this service, compared to all the other entertainment offers.
14
With VoD (in all its forms: SVoD, Pay VoD, etc.) expected to be the main form of TV consumption, brands will be even more important, since consumers will have to easily find titles or shows to watch. Therefore, not only the brand of the service will be important,
but also branding of the show (or at least, some shows).
Plus, in the future, the monetization of branding will be a routine exercise: How much value producers get in helping viewers find their
products and choosing to watch them will be an integral part of any marketing decision.
Producers can develop the best show on earth, but if consumers don’t know about it or don’t recognize it, success is impossible. Today, branding seems an extra cost that can be spent only when producers can afford it, while in the future it will become part of the
production cost. In conclusion, in a complex world, consumers need simplified navigation tools, and for TV viewers of 2030, a strong
brand will be like a GPS in the desert.
Luca Federico Cadura, leads Kenturio, a Rome, Italy-based media and marketing strategic consulting company he founded. Previously he spent 15 years at NBCUniversal Italy, producing and distributing the Company’s branded networks (Studio Universal, Diva Universal,
Steel, E! Entertainment, Syfy, Style, Calle 13, Hallmark Channel in Italy and Universal Channel in Spain Greece and Turkey). Before joining the television arena he worked at advertising
agencies, Saatchi & Saatchi, Ayer and Grey.
15
MORE REGULATIONS, STRICTER RULES DRIVEN
BY CONSUMERS, NOT LOBBIES
By Steve Schiffman
The global prognosis for a regulation-free media environment during the next two decades is minimal at best. In fact, the opposite is
closer to the truth: the future of media will include a heavy dose of regulatory oversight. This will include business practices, program
content and technical issues.
For some, such as the “content providers” that create and/or distribute videos and programs, the focus will be on open competition
and the need to avoid concentration of ownership.
On the other hand, there are the Internet service providers (ISPs), companies that provide the consumer with access to the Internet, like, in the U.S., AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cox and Time Warner Cable. Over the next 15 years, the trend for regulation will
vary according to a company’s role. Today, those involved tend to be the same players. For instance, in addition to being an ISP,
Comcast owns NBCUniversal and delivers TV shows and movies through its Xfinity Internet service.
The trend toward more regulatory oversight has been a response to the need for increased consumer protection. Economic issues,
such as vertical and horizontal concentration of ownership by a handful of international corporate entities have also contributed to
the increase.
Regulation will take various forms, depending on the type of media and its location. In the U.S., the reason for such regulation goes
back to the 1920s and 1930s.
During that early period of electronic media policy, those in the mass media decided that the best regulatory focus was that of “selfregulation.” In other words, the American perspective was to give private enterprise a predominant role, including that of encouraging
technology, with the understanding that the U.S. federal government would keep a watchful eye via the newly created Federal Communications Commission (FCC). One key area that was retained by the FCC was that of licensing and frequency/spectrum allocation.
However, when cable television started to make its appearance in the U.S., it was not the FCC that had most of the regulatory control,
but rather local municipalities. Cable did not utilize the “public airwaves” but rather was viewed more as a public utility which was
seen as a “natural monopoly.” As such it regulated in exchange for an exclusive franchise to operate within a specific geographic area.
Looking ahead to the next 15 years, it is likely that spectrum usage (and the avoidance of interference) will continue to be one of
the primary concerns of the FCC. This can be seen in two spheres: the FCC broadcast spectrum auction and the recent move toward
“network neutrality” vis-à-vis the Internet.
Network neutrality (Net Neutrality for short), in its most basic terms means an Internet that enables and protects free speech, and ISPs
that provide consumers with open networks — without blocking or discriminating against any content that flow over those networks.
Just recently, the FCC commissioners voted three-to-two to approve a 300-plus page net neutrality proposal, rooted in Title II of the
U.S. Communications Act, which has two “competing” laws: the original 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act. However, both documents state that common carriers must act “in the public interest,” and can’t “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”
This rule reversed the previous ISP status as an “information service” (i.e., no different from a website or an online service), which in turn
removed the FCC’s ability to prohibit ISPs from blocking or discriminating against online content.
The old “information service” approach also removed the FCC’s ability to ensure that ISPs protected consumer privacy. In an earlier
Verizon vs. FCC court action, the U.S. Court stated that the FCC lacked authority because of “the Commission’s still-binding decision
16
to classify broadband providers not as providers of ‘telecommunications services’, but instead as providers of ‘information services.”
The net neutrality protection requires a regulatory infrastructure, for without it cable and phone companies would be tempted – on
strictly business or financial grounds – to “carve” the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay
for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. In the eyes of many, such an unregulated environment would destroy the open Internet.
What does that mean in terms of content providers? In theory, the ISP will have no control or influence over content; they will be powerless over potential complaints relating to use of vulgarities, violence, and even concerns of security. Thus, the burden will be shifted
to the FCC, which will be the new content watchdog.
Also driving regulations during the next 15 years are the consumer-focused anti-trust concerns, which deal with anti-competitive behavior and abuses of a dominant market position that increase costs on consumers as well as offering less choice.
How will these regulations be enforced? The short answer is that courts will enforce the decrees and verdicts mandated by regulatory agencies.
However, in the long term, it will be the “victims” that will demand protection, be they corporate competitors or the consumer. These “victims”
will insist that protections continue for those who are deemed weaker in the David vs. Goliath scenario.
What we can also expect in 2030 is a continuation of an obsolescence-based business model where consumers have to discard working computers due to software updates and telephones for discontinued power plugs.
This is because in the U.S. and many other countries, official standards that don’t require radio waves are not government-regulated. Instead they are privately issued and regulated by the Geneva, Switzerland-based International Organization for Standardization,
which is composed of 162 member countries.
Steve Schiffman is a Las Vegas, Nevada-based international entertainment attorney, a television producer and a journalist. He’s a media and intellectual property expert, and, in addition to such clients as CBS, NBC and CNN, he has consulted for the United Nations, U.S.
State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, and has appeared
on such global media as CBC-TV, BBC, France 24 and Russia Today. Schiffman was also the
founder and CEO of Tourism Television Inc., which aired English-language movies, news and
information television services to guests of leading hotels, around the world, including those
in Moscow and Central Asia. He’s now producing and hosting Cruising Gourmet and Vegas
Nightlife
17
TVCASTERS OFFERING TELEACTION IN 3D HOLOGRAPHY,
BUT FOR STORAGE, PAPER WINS
By Edoardo Fleischner
In 2030, every person on earth will be able to produce and release live, 3D,
8K-multiple, holographic, artificial reality audio-video content. All of these
are grouped under the acronym: “3DXKHAR.”
Any consumer will be able to be a “TVcaster:” a content provider and a media company combined. In addition, consumers will also be wearing concealed mini cameras (smaller than a one-millimeter cube), broadcasting
their points of view to whomever the “TVcaster” allows.
“Just list the last four jobs!”
Furthermore, with the use of 360-degree cameras (ball-cameras), “TVcasters” can shoot an entire location in all directions simultaneously. Viewers
will be able to see every location, as if they themselves were there. This is
now called “pan-television,” but in the future its proper definition will be “pan-teleaction.”
This is because content offerings in the future — which I define as “teleaction” — will be unlimited, created by “TVcasters” and
SEO-tailored (Search Engine Optimization, i.e. how a website optimizes its ranking in the results of a specific content search by an
internet user).
Holography will be the near future of 3D television. It’s only a matter of when, since its journey began more than 60 years ago. Holography has been the main factor for the disruption of the old 3D television. With holographic teleaction (and movies), we will have
full 3D images actually placed “outside the screen” and not simply “inside the screen.”
In the future, teleaction will have a SNL-SEO capability (Semantic and Natural Language Search Engine Optimization) where the viewer will write the query (the request of a certain subject or type of shows) in everyday language, perhaps even using slang. Most likely, the viewer will speak the request.
A program guide, to aid in the content selection will be a “robot-guided android,” who will be able to interact vocally with viewers regarding their tastes, interests and preferences.
All these will lead to a business model that I call “reticular revenue,” where viewers receive from their paid-for “personal android,”
answers to queries, which will not be a list, but rather some personal programming “paths.” These paths will be “reticular” (a word
borrowed from biology, meaning “connective tissues”), as they will drive the viewer in one or more cross-media viewing direction. For
example, a cross-media viewing route might offer a viewer an early evening show, followed by a multiplayer game and, afterwards,
a session in a real TV game, ending with a City Hall interactive participation debate.
The current viewers’ second and third screen experience will no longer be used. Viewers will be able to participate in event-based programming “inside their screen” (e.g., walk on the red carpet of the Academy Awards’ Oscar ceremony together with the stars). This
“personal augmented reality” will be visible on the viewers’ holographic TV
and shared on friends’ and colleagues’ screens.
Any 3DXKHAR content will also be set up as an environmental interface, i.e. 3D holographic viewer space. Any object, location, service, etc. will be on sale on the spot for the viewer (augmented product and service placement). For example, a viewer immersed in
a 3D computer graphics built scene (like in a videogame), will be able to analyze any object in that scene and make an instant pur-
18
chase. Gaming among viewers and TVcasters will be one of the main elements of the teleaction. Viewers will stage a kind of MMOG
(massively multiplayer online game: millions of simultaneous players) or even a MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing game). The outcome will be a special kind of reality show, where a real multiplayer game will be set up in a television fashion.
Viewers will be able to participate in game shows from home, on trains or airplanes, while climbing a mountain or sailing a boat, and
it will be a “real” presence, an immersive presence.
In terms of obsolescence, the personal computer is one of the next devices to undoubtedly become an obsolete piece of hardware. It
will be replaced by many other pieces of hardware and software: wearable devices with keyboards (real or holographic), capable of
speech-to-text, brain-to-text and brain-to-command software.
Finally, for the future of data storage, there’s an embarrassing question to be posed: when and how will we find a better technology
than paper for the best long lasting data storage? A good hard disk, if not used may keep its data intact for decades, as opposed to
centuries if stored on paper (maybe even millenniums if stored with care).
Here, the two opposing elements are “lasting” versus “copying.” Paper wins outright with “lasting,” digital data wins with “copying.”
Consequently, to keep stored digital data intact and to be able to retrieve it safely, we have to copy it regularly — copy after copy
after copy. In the near future, every new storage technology will extend the interval between one copying and another.
However, in 2030 content of any kind will be still king and we will still pay for it, in some way.
Based in Milan, Edoardo Fleischner has been a magazine editor since 1976 and today
writes on digital media. He’s editor-in-chief of the weekly news TV magazine Questitalia,
head editor of the on demand educational channel, TvLanguage, and editorial manager of
GMTV‘s thematic channels and web adaptation. He hosted the weekly TV program Neo Media and Media Scenarios on Italy’s RaiNews24 and Rai3, and wrote for Rai’s TV program
Dixit on digital world. Fleischner is on the strategic committee of the Institute for Innovation
in Media and Multimedia and is scientific director of the Computer Science-ICT-NewMedia Encyclopedic Dictionary of Treccani. Since 1999, he has run a weekly national radio program,
Media e dintorni (Media And Its Environs) and he’s a lecturer of Cross-Media Communication at the State University of Milan.
19
FUTURIST AND SCIENTIST TALKS ABOUT INTERNET VULNERABILITIES
A question and answer interview with Michael Liebhold, senior researcher at the Institute for the Future,
a Palo Alto, California-based non-profit research group. The 70-year-old Liebhold worked at Intel Labs, was a scientist
for Apple Computers and is a former VP of technology at Times Mirrow.
Liebhold discussed his predictions over the phone, in an interview that VideoAge editors recorded, transcribed and edited for space
below. The focus was Internet security, which is the backbone of the modern and future entertainment business, and the outcome is
not very encouraging.
Will technology solve Internet security problems?
The answer is no. Even secure systems will be breached. Technology will make it extremely difficult and expensive, [but] governments
and criminals have almost unlimited resources to develop the capabilities to hack into just about anything.
The edges of the Internet networks will always be insecure. We’ll need multi-factor biometric, social and policy solutions to solve
the problem. In the future, you may have to give a retina print, a fingerprint, a voiceprint or even a heartbeat to replace passwords.
Multi-faceted security is key because it is possible to fool with a fingerprint. There needs to be a second factor.
How will piracy of intellectual property evolve in 2030? Will it be controlled or will it be more uncontrollable? Will there be
any defense in order to reduce it?
The futures of piracy and protection of intellectual property are deeply entangled in the future of encryption. Without deep encryption, intellectual property will become increasingly vulnerable. With pervasive encryption (advocated by Apple, Google and others), IP
would continue to enjoy some technical protections. Unfortunately, government agencies in the U.S., China and elsewhere are deeply
concerned that criminals would be protected from surveillance by pervasive deep encryption. This conflict is currently in negotiation at
all levels, but it is unlikely that it will be resolved in our lifetime.
Is it possible that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) will get involved and create Internet zones that
are not automatically interconnected?
ICANN is responsible for two things: the administration of domain names and IP addresses. ICANN doesn’t administer policy over the
use of addresses, so ICANN probably won’t be the venue for your suggestion about a fragmented Internet in Russia and China. The
U.S. could block e-mail or information coming from Russia, but it wouldn’t be done through ICANN.
China is developing its own network. You cannot access the global Internet in China without permission. China, Saudi Arabia, Russia
and Iran are all trying to assert nation-state control over their local Internet, while the rest of the world sees the Internet as a global
resource that cannot be regulated by nation-states.
In the West, the Internet is designed for personal privacy and liberty; the extreme case of liberty is anarchy. In China, the Internet is
engineered for social harmony, and the
extreme case of social harmony is totalitarianism. The middle ground between these two philosophies is a diplomatic problem.
Will there be a secure way to prevent online wars?
Governments are now attacking the problem. Online wars could paralyze countries. The problem is so large and complex, it’s hard to
know how close we are to making the system secure [against online wars]. Right now the Internet infrastructure is very vulnerable.
There are so many problems with the software stacks, starting at the bottom with the electrical layer, going up to the service layers,
the application layers and the user layers. The entire stack of technology is vulnerable.
They’re finding 30-year-old flaws in the network encryption systems that we’ve used since the beginning of the Internet. The Internet is not engineered for security and privacy. If we make everything secure and private, then criminals will be protected too. It’s a
defining question of our time.
20
Will the Internet become standardized and compatible?
Backwards compatibility will always be an issue. Making old TV compatible with modern TV was a huge global effort. The problem
in the technology world is there are geopolitical interests. In the software ecosystem, there are conflicts, for example, between Samsung, LG, Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple, etc. They all have complete software ecosystems that are not compatible on the interactive television screens. And governments won’t push them to standardize. One of the fundamental problems of the digital economy is that
[companies will continue to] see business value in controlling their business.
Will a combination of more pipes and better compression make broadband sufficient for the growing Internet traffic?
Theoretically it could, however the demand for video is growing exponentially. The fundamental problem is that [today, providers]
who own the networks don’t have mature business models for making money on the networks. So, they don’t have the financial incentive to build new connectivities. I don’t see business enterprises responding with sufficient investment to satisfy our population’s
insatiable demand for video and other high-bandwidth like entertainment.
And it is not necessarily the governments’ responsibility to solve this problem. Google could solve it. Google has the largest network
in the world and can offer broadband and video service at a much lower cost than its competitors in the telecommunications system
because their cost of operation is subsidized by enormous income from other businesses. Google has the business models that allows
them to build communication infrastructures.
In some cases, governments will build the [broadband] infrastructures. Certainly in South Korea, Singapore, China, Europe and places
like that there are government incentives for building advance broadband networks, but it will vary from nation to nation.
Will broadband (and thus the Internet) still be based on a subscription model?
Many cities in the U.S. wanted to put up free Wi-Fi, but telephone companies stopped that because it would have hurt their profits.
In some cases, companies or governments may subsidize it so it could be free.
People may demand it at some point, but there will always be a fee for access.
Will the Internet be protected from nuclear electromagnetic pulses?
No. There’s vulnerability. Everything electric will be impacted, but it’s a remote possibility. I don’t see any effort to solve the problem
[because] anything that has low probability has low investment going into it.
21
ACCURACY OF FAR-SIGHTED PREDICTIONS IS 90 PERCENT MENTAL,
THE OTHER HALF IS PHYSICAL
By Dom Serafini
Understanding the past is just as complicated as predicting the future. Historians and film and TV producers make money from both.
Conference organizers profit only from the future and, for publications, the mysterious past and the unpredictable future fill up their
pages.
The future of over-the-air (OTA) television is increasingly discussed around the world. My prediction is that free-to-air (FTA) television
will remain in 2030. Blair Westlake, whose predictions are on page 8 is of different opinion. Looking from today’s perspective, in my
home the TV set connected to the aerial antenna receives more channels than the set hooked up to basic cable.
The question, however, is what form will it take? Will FTA continue to be OTA with a Wi-Fi type of broadcast technology, or will the TV
broadcast frequencies be replaced by channeling the audiovisual signals on the Internet pipe? Naturally, both options are plausible, so that
stations can monetize their frequencies by leasing a portion to other forms of communications, like Wi-Fi.
Another hot debate is what form television will take and if it will still be called “television” in 2030 or just “video.” To me, this is a
non-issue because what one calls it will not change what it will do. Let’s say that 15 years from now, audio and video electronic pulses will be inducted directly into our brain, completely bypassing our eyes and ears, what will “it” be called then?
And what if the premise of American psychologist Barry Schwartz’s 2004 book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, will indeed
prevail and consumers will opt for fewer choices?
Predicting the future is really tricky because we tend to base our predictions on current or perceived technology and regulations. In
1860, a group of experts were called upon to predict the future of New York City in 100 years. The conclusion of their study was
that 100 years later, New York City would no longer exist. The reasoning was that if the growth of the population continued at the
same rate, transporting people around the city would necessitate six million horses, and the manure generated by so many animals
would engulf the city.
The book Superfreakonomics, published in 2009 and inspired by the works of urbanist Eric Morris, reported that in 1880 the horse
population of NYC reached 175,000, with each animal producing up to 13 kilos of manure per day (for a total of 2.3 million kilo
and 151,000 liters of urine each day), filling up every possible city corner. By 1890, there were 200,000 horses in New York City.
So, based on those assumptions, it isn’t surprising that the predictions made in 1860 were so apocalyptic. Those experts that gathered in New York City in 1860 did not take into consideration developments in transportation technology. They did not envision going
from horse power to horsepower, which, 43 years later, in 1903, would see New
York City with a subway system and 6,400 cars in circulation.
Playing on American philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine’s 1948 article “On What There is,” it can be said that those experts in
1860 failed to figure out the thingamajig that wasn’t yet there. I’m sure that in the years inching toward 2030, executives in each
sector of the industry will figure out who their competitors will be, and technology that today is both spearheading and hindering the
digital revolution (like the multiple rights management systems) will find its mojo.
Naturally, predicting the future based on too much technology did bring us wristband television 50 years too early and left flying cars in
the sci-fi world, 98 years after being predicted. Or take the prediction of 3D television. Since 1935, it is still nowhere to be seen, except
at TV trade shows. In this case, predictions were made using a mix of current, future and sci-fi technology, however, after 80 years it is
nowhere close to practicality. This is reflected in Edoardo Fleischner’s prediction on page 18, where all kinds of flying car-type of innovation is expected to be a reality in 2030.
22
Talking about the future of the Internet, analysts expect omnipresence in everyday reality. This is definitely true, but if current hacking by governments (Russia, China and the U.S.) continues, the World Wide Web will surely take another form. While geo-restrictions
are now easily bypassed, in the future countries may develop stronger walls, and with that all predictions (based on current analysis)
will be horse manure.
When it comes to the future of human health, medical professionals are in the same boat as any other analyst. An example is the
warning that my primary physician, a cardiologist, gave me: “Research indicated that eating two eggs per week is now considered
healthy, but do it fast before we change our mind.”
In conclusion, making predictions without taking into consideration future technology (that right now we can only imagine), utilizing
too much futuristic technology, being caught in the midst of a fast-evolving technology or not considering possible new regulations,
will ultimately produce inaccurate predictions. But that’s no reason to stop making them, as long as we understand that there is only
a 50-50 chance of accuracy.
It’s just like advertising, which is projected to have 50 percent waste, though it is not known which 50 percent. After all, the Palo Alto,
California-based Foresight Institute has made several erroneous predictions over the years about everything.
A final note: The headline above was inspired by the retired, great Yankees catcher, Yogi Berra, who actually said: “Baseball is 90
percent mental and the other half is physical.” And regarding the future: “You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you
are going, because you might not get there.”
Dom Serafini is the editor of VideoAge and VideoAge Daily. He’s the author of eight books,
including: 100 years of Research, 50 Years of Developments, 25 Years of Mass Media, and
the Future of Television (1975); Television via Internet: A New Frontier (1999), and The
Ten Commandments For The TV of The Future (2002), which was inspired from a White Paper he wrote for IBC 2001.
23
24
C
Prix Italia Members
under the patronage of
in collaboration with
with the support of
Torinodanza
international partners
D