IP: carbon-based v. silicon-based switches

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: "Marshall Rose" <mrose () dbc mtview ca us>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
> dave - i thought this might be grist for i-p; by sending it to you, we
> realize you must disclose to your readers that you, lee stein, and marshall
> are directors of iz.com. here goes:
>
> over the last few years, the tv convergence effort has centered on hardware
> and media companies working on the set-top paradigm. but, as gene
> derosa of jupiter notes: with laptops getting cheaper, the operational
> definition of convergence is people watching tv as they interact with their
> laptops. some recent experiments are testing this model (e.g., abc's
> drewcam, mtv's webriot, and our very own iz.com). our view is that the
> difference in models depends on whether "switch" is in silicon or in carbon.
>
> the silicon-based approach uses a set-top box as the switch. the tv
> industry has made some headway, but faces a rather daunting challenge:
> the effort to bring interactive tv to the masses must contend with the
> tendency of today's "masses" to view tv as a passive activity --  regardless
> of how good the show is. in other words, the carbon-based switch (read:
> "the person sitting on the sofa watching tv") usually goes active only to
> change channels. in contrast, when someone's sitting in front of a computer,
> they want to be the programmer (read: "that which chooses the content").
>
> the approach we're taking at iz.com is based on this latter observation.
> since the carbon-based switch rules, why not produce a tv show for
> that subset of people who can multitask between tv & the internet?
>
> it turns out that this is a generational issue: each generation tends to
> view the dominant media of the preceeding generation as providing ambiance
> at the periphery. this happened to print, then to radio, and now to tv as
> the internet takes the center. when my mother's primary goal is
> entertainment, she'll turn on the tv; when she's doing something else, on
> goes
> the radio. for the emerging generation of adults, the internet is what you
> do
> to be entertained and you turn on the tv to provide "next generation
> elevator music".
>
> so, our convergence strategy is to produce tv shows that are watched
> by the new demographic while they're online. there are a couple of
> challenges here. the first is that the members of the new demographic are
> media sophisticates - you need to be compelling to get their attention and
> you need to be real to earn their respect. the second is that when someone
> starts clicking on the remote, they'll click upto 22 times in a minute(!!).
>
> we use a "horizontal network" model: because the concept of "loyalty" to a
> channel is non-existent to the new demographic, we buy different time slots
> from a variety of cable channels. they channel surf until they find
> something
> of interest and when they lose interest, they move on. hence, the current
> show
> is a lifestyle-oriented -- segments are 2-4 minutes long and deal with
> music,
> sports, activism, and fun stuff -- things of interest to the new
> demographic.
>
> each segment contains a call to action to the site: sometimes the call is to
> a bunch of pages containing a lot more detail (e.g., the segment producer's
> travel log), sometimes there's just a "page o'links" or a virtual tour of
> where
> the segment was shot, and sometimes there's a product for sale (gasp!). our
> philosophy is that tv provides the taste and the web provides the depth.
> we're
> not alone in this view: many of the cable giants, e.g., CNBC, CNN, DSC,
> ESPN,
> etc., have been experimenting with earlier versions of this philosophy.
>
> watching all this unfold will be a lot of fun -- tv is undergoing some major
> changes over the next few years.
>
> /mtr