DIGITAL STORYTELLING!

those numbers are looking much like the demographically-subdivided ratings providedvia peoplemeters for traditional broadcast media. Server-side audits and online panels,for example, now report cumulative audiences, just like radio and public broadcasting.But advertisers want more: They want to know how many, for how long, and whatkind of users each medium, each channel, and each unit of content has. They want toknow how the various media interact as vehicles for their messages. Programmers andproducers also want to know these same things in order to produce or purchase thebest possible (most precisely targeted?) programs for their situations. The remarkablenew portable and personal metering systems that are now being tested will ultimatelymeasure all media consumption in the same general ways and, so the industrypromises, provide data directly comparable to traditional metered data of broadcastaudiences. As I understand the technology, personal meters will record an inaudiblefrequency emitted by all programs—whether in original run, replay, or repurposedreplay on the air, satellite, or online. At BEA, this signal was referred to as an“electronic dog whistle,” a sound people cannot hear. The personal meter has the greatadvantages of recording from any electronic medium in any location (if one carries itaround) and of being totally passive, unlike current peoplemeters that are fixed andnecessitate active button-pushing by multiple viewers.Eventually, personal meters will be super-miniaturized, and their capabilities arelikely to be expanded “read” auditory barcodes or other signals from print media,billboards, and maybe even email advertising. Indeed, it is the value of such crossplatforminformation that will convince the big media conglomerates to swallow theenormous cost of a new audience evaluation system.The best programmers and producers have always tried to predict the implicationsof new user technologies for content. What will portable personal metering do? It willtrack all media exposure via a transmitted source-code, wherever and whenever it takesplace. Having consolidated and comparative numbers will profoundly affectadvertising and program packaging. Eventually, the movement of even small segmentsof content will be tracked by their own coded signals across many platforms and overtime.What will be really new isn’t only that the industry will soon track everythingviewers consume via personal meter: The other side of the coin is that viewers willdemand some benefit for carrying around the industry’s new toy! One likely rewardwill be the ability to store information on what you—the viewer—consume and whatyou want to consume, and this information will be with you wherever you are (not athome locked into a TiVo). Portability matters. Once the metering technologybecomes the size of Dick Tracy’s wrist radio and the so-called benefits multiple, as theyhave for calculators and cell phones, and PPMs merge with personal data assistants(PDAs), lots of people will wear the devices. Even right now, it is easy to imagine alittle subroutine in each person’s meter that will reveal what movies and series episodeshave already been seen and, for new-to-you and newly-made programs, such things ascontent and popularity ratings or predictions, date of availability (and even what theday’s horoscope recommends or whatever...) Viewers can have a click-icon thatidentifies episodes already seen by the PPM’s user, that I predict has to be on the wristto be successful because that location suits (and is familiar to) both women and menand people of almost any age. (Sci fi predicts that the images will be holographicallyprojected out in front of us; thus they can be complex if need be and of any size theuser wants.)In the not too distant future, PPMs will combine functions that were onceassociated with VCRs, PVRs, PDAs, and RCDs (video and digital recorders, dataassistants, and remote controls, for those who don’t like alphabet letters). At that time,personal meters will fully merge with computers to become life-long possessions,retaining stored content for a lifetime, irrespective of changing hardware and software.Having knowledge of the personal consumption history and preferences for eachperson, wedded to basic demographic data, will, without a doubt, profoundly changeprogramming strategies. At the same time, each person’s constantly availableknowledge of their own consumption history and preferences will impact theeffectiveness of programming strategies. As the industry changes, the audience changes,too.SchedulingIt is probably the area of scheduling that most disturbs those considering the impact ofthe newest technologies. It is television programming’s most unique characteristic aswell as the part of the programming paradigm most affected by technological change.Conventional television focuses on the flow of audience throughout a time period andis very much concerned with inherited viewing, measured as lead-in ratings orduplicated viewing. Specifically, the preceding program is presumed to be the source ofabout half the viewers of the second program in a sequence. A long-recognized seriesof strategies, such as blocking, hammocking, and seamlessness, have the purpose ofencouraging strong flow from program to program. (In contrast, the strategy ofcounterprogramming goes after unserved audience subgroups.) The strategy ofstunting seeks to lure the other channels’ viewers and those precious “appointmentviewers” to a channel. Will we see much more stunting as TiVo and other PVRsbecome commonplace? In the emerging future, I see the end of linear flow strategies,more stunting, narrower target demographics, and increased power for programsuppliers who control the menu options.TiVo and its kin makes the subtleties of linear sequencing on the originatingchannels irrelevant. However, viewers haven’t rushed to adopt PVRs for a variety ofreasons. Currently, more than two-thirds of households get their television via cable,and cable-compatible TiVos are not here yet. It also depends on how many people ofthe current generations want to be bothered to do their own scheduling. Study afterstudy has shown that the bulk of the television audience is lazy or, at the least, passive.Other commitments take so much energy that little is left to devote to fiddling withone’s TV set (except for such early adopters as teachers of programming andtechnology!).Any Internet programmer today must recognize that only a fraction of peoplereceive their television-like entertainment from the web as yet, and thus the audiencefor any entertainment shown must target a very narrow demographic or psychographicgroup. As colleague Doug Ferguson has pointed out (2002), the strategies ofcompatibility in audiences, habit formation via bookmarks and long-term selection, thepromotional value of spinoffs and tie-ins, and the goal of conservation of programresources via repurposing will endure across media.78Feedback February 2003 (Vol. 44, No. 1)BEA—Educating tomorrow’s electronic media professionals 79