On 09/10/2007, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://radar.oreilly.com/Picture%2052.html > > Full story - http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/09/throng_unveils.html > > I saw this while browsing my rss aggregator. Seems like a decent design > for a TV Guide. I was wondering how it would work if placed on one of > those really long interactive smile mit timelines.
Just getting back to this for a moment... The EPG "problem" is actually at the heart of something interesting that is going on here. Firstly, I'm going to note the Sky problem - the EPG is "full". So, whilst there is technically lots more capacity on the satellite system, the actual running of the EPG had become a headache for Sky. So, whilst there is an obvious solution to the problem - kick the useless interactive services off the box and give the memory to the EPG - Sky use the inertia to create a little drag on the number of competitors entering the market. Interesting this has already created a market in the EPG positions! Channel 4 bought up "Life TV" and then moved in on their EPG numbers. They've already done another swap up the EPG since then. Interesting Channel 4 has create a "secondary market" in EPG positions and yet the EPG "gatekeeper" gets to allocate their own channels any numbers they choose, which is "printing your own money". Secondly, the damn +1 channels Yes, yes, they are a great idea. They cost almost nothing to run and soak up viewers for your content without much promotional effort. They work well for mixed genre channels by having another "flick" position. And in theory they are great for PVRs to get alternative schedules from. Except they don't because PVR EPGs don't seem to be expecting +1 channels... But they are only "choice" in theory because they offer no additional content whatsoever. So "repeats" have become a good thing because they are cheap? Thirdly, aside from the Virgin Media EPG, all the others insist on showing you all channels, including ones you do not subscribe to. Whilst this is fantastic from a marketing point of view, it should be an option you have to turn on - the default should always be just the channels you can actually watch. If the alternative design we saw in the http://radar.oreilly.com/Picture%2052.html is quite good, but it would perhaps therefore benefit from a few modifications. I would have a "listen" section too, for the radio channels; Then "now" would be "watch" and "soon" would stay Put on the right hand side a toggle list of the channels. If broadcasters wish, i guess a small square channel logo could appear to the left of the programme name, something like that. When the record button is pressed another section would appear above "tonight" called "record", showing the programmes that have been set to record. and then... When a programme has recorded, it would simply move into the "watch" ("or listen") area with a little "play" symbol showing it can be watched from the start. If it paused during playback you stick a "pause" symbol by it.. something like that. So, Fourthly, if people started consuming TV as "delivered content" bereft of brands, then what would happen to the BARB figures? If a programme appears on a channel, a plus one channel and then another channel (Channel 4, Channel 4+1, More4 for example) do the BARB figures actually mean? We really need to start collecting aggregated viewing figures for each programme including legal (iPlayer) and "not yet declared legal" (say, BitTorrent) viewing so that we can start detecting the "long tail". Being "long" it takes time to measure, but adding a few hundred thousand viewing to a BBC FOUR programme might be a good thing to know about. But seriously, we need to stop ignoring these viewings and get someone to measure them so policy can be decided upon data and not on speculation? Also, there must be other broadcasters who are more interested in the wide distribution of at least some of their content - perhaps to build a brand presence - who would benefit from the measurement, even if for hype purposes? - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
