Wee TV Clix In Stix, Nix
In Today’s (3 March) IMDb Studio Briefing this little article hung out near the bottom:
Consumers Hanging Up on Cell-Phone Video
Few people are watching clips of television shows and other videos on cell phones, according to a report by research firm Diffusion Group reported in today’s (Monday) New York Times. “All our research keeps pointing at a lack of interest among consumers in viewing video on the mobile phone,” according to the report’s author, Michael Greeson. The report also noted that only about 10 percent of adults who have PCs capable of downloading TV shows and movies actually have done so and only 1 percent use any of the downloading services frequently.
Taking a track that is hopefully obvious to readers of TPN:BOW I looked up the original article, knowing I wouldn’t find it because they’re making things up again. But find it I did. Knock me over with a french fry. This article indirectly leads closer to the source, a press release from TDG Research/ The Diffusion Group.
I want to work for these guys. You apparently get to create for-sale reports about things anyone with common sense already knows. In the case of the above-mentioned article, people generally don’t want to watch Lawrence of Arabia on their cellphone. Not even on an iPhone, which you can turn sideways for a more pleasing aspect ratio. They would rather watch full-length, widescreen movies on the flat-panel TV they just bought, from the comfort of their couches. Wow. To repeat a nearly antiquated idiom: Stop the presses.
This illustrates an aspect of video distribution that has confused me for a while. New media seems to be pulling in opposite directions: to the biggest and smallest screens possible.
Theatrical films, even low-budget slashers, are lovingly crafted to look stunning projected digitally or shown in 35mm. The latest digital post-production methods allow even modestly budgeted films to have excellent effects and sumptuous DI (digital intermediate) color and image correction. High-end scripted television shows are also designed to exploit everything 1080 HDTV has to offer.
Yet cell-phone companies and online distributors also constantly try to push the same content for viewing on teeny little screens. There are very few broadcast TV shows I can think of that work well that small. The audio-heavy and visually static “American Idol” comes to mind: “The Daily Show,” with it’s emphasis on well-written desk pieces, is another. The Transformers Movie on my cellphone? Forget it.
Computer-based downloads are a step up from cellphones, and if shown well can emulate the big-screen experience in a small way. (and if you have an AppleTV box, you can go all the way to your flatscreen.) but there is something out of step about movies on computers. They really weren’t designed for it, and the whole experience is somewhat uninviting and lonely. Movies are best experienced in the dark, with an audience. They open up more realistically, and in the case of comedy or horror, a crowd magnifies the experience. Even television works better as a hearth, in a living room with family or friends. That’s what commercials are really for: discussing the plots while the ads roll. Computering (for lack of a better word) is a solitary activity: one person, one keyboard. Great for the low-expectation or de-contextualized videos of YouTube or let’s say, more private viewing experiences, but I’ve never seen a family gathered together around the ol’ desktop, watching the latest episode of whatever.
This all begs the issue: Where is the middle of this trend? Where is the equivalent of the 19″ TV? The nineteen-inch (measured diagonally) was the great median of television. It was a grand size for the 50s, measured up well in the 60s and 70s, and was still the small-room set of choice into the new century. If you could afford it, you went with a 27″ In the living room and the 19″ in the bedroom. Television shows were designed with these sets in mind.
In any case, there are medium-sized flatscreens for sale, but they tend to be so expensive for the size most people still tend to think big. The median flatscreen size is 42″. So we’re in this strange place with content presentation: see it big and life-sized, or see it tiny.
This may be the reason movies aren’t exactly selling on tiny monitors, and TDG may or may not have understood this. Still, TDG’s website has many other fun, “well, DUH!” articles like this. Did you know that many people have heard of Download-To-Burn movie services, but nobody uses them? Something about “sneakernetting” from burner to TV. Or the fact that now we are using Tivo and DVRs to timeshift viewing, we’ll be doing MORE of it in the future? Such a font of research knowledge, these guys. Or how about this one, summarized from “Movie Rental Behavior and Proclivity to Use Online Movie Services:”
Today’s movie renters have a myriad of options for shopping, selecting, and receiving their movies, including brick-and-mortar video rental stores (e.g. Blockbuster);Pay-Per-View (PPV) or Video-On-Demand (VOD) services offered through their cable or satellite TV service; direct-mail rental services (e.g., Netflix), as well as online movie download (OMD) services (e.g., CinemaNow, Movielink, or iTunes). While all of these services compete with one another, few consumers use only one type of service; most choose instead to use the one that best suits their needs at the specific time.
Thanks for the insight, Captain Obvious. Alright, I’m having a bit of sport at TDG’s expense: the reports they offer contain detailed demographic breakdowns and hard data that corporations and video professionals need to make sound decisions based on market share and such. Actually, at US$2500 a pop for each report, they had better contain such details.
Still, duh.
–Skot C.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:20 am
I am in the rare camp of people who DO watch TV on an iPod touch. Caveats - no movies. At most an hour- long episodic, but usually ROCKETBOOM and ONION NEWS NETWORK, webisodes that come at ya in tiny bites. Coffee-break length.
I watched TRANSFORMERS at home in the studio apartment, and got almost all the way through before my cranky neighbors pounded on the walls to complain about the dolby 5.1 noise. Who knows though - perhaps I’ll watch this week’s Netflix selection, BECKETT, on the ‘pod. That oughtta suit the tiny screen nicely.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Alright, ROCKETBOOM and especially The Onion video pieces are designed to be seen online. Just look at the size of the text graphics relative to frame size. So really, it puts you in good company.
And what you point out about the 5.1 thing might be another aspect of the lack of median. (though I imagine TRANSFORMERS is a cacophany of horrible machine sounds and explosions end to end.) Most films and HDTV shows are designed with 5.1 surround, begging the audience to crank it through a multiple speakers. Even MY NAME IS EARL has really decent surround sound.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I think you’re on to something when you refer to the “hearth.”
Growing up, the TV was the hearth. Though it lacked the warmth of the traditional fireplace, it still glowed, and it was the only gathering place where we would all come together besides the dinner table (and even then the TV was on in the next room and we were all watching it while we ate).
Watching TV or movies on a computer, or worse- a handheld device like a cell phone, is a very isolating activity. I’m not going to say things were better back when I was a kid, but at least we occupied the same room and there was a modicum of interaction.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:14 am
[...] « Wee TV Clix In Stix, Nix A Passing, Noted During Friday Night’s Game » [...]