Many of us have used the BBC iPlayer to watch live TV when away from home or when someone else is watching the main TV (The Euros being a prime example).

Yesterday, the BBC launched a fascinating addition to its live service. Called Live Restart, it enables live viewers the ability to rewind up to two hours through content, or just to click to the beginning of the current programme. Missed the goal or watch the 100m final again? Just rewind, watch again, then fast forward to the present.

Live Restart is another example of how people are able to more easily control the viewing experience. And with such ease of control, some of the distinctions people make between live and non-linear video are likely to continue to decline.

It will be interesting to see in what situations people will use the service, and with which other kinds of content. Sport is an obvious example, such as during the rest of the European Championships and during Wimbledon and the Olympics.

It will also be interesting to see if this drives up PVR purchase rather than down. Having had a taste of time-shifted TV on a computer, non-PVR owners are likely to want to replicate the experience onto the TV and across other TV channels.

Earlier this week, ITV’s Adam Crozier shared an update on the company’s commercial performance across the first quarter of 2012. Despite ad revenue being slightly down in the quarter, a positive outlook for June, strong performance from ITV Studios and growth of online viewing all contributed to the results being well received. The share price responded positively and we were further encouraged by the promise of a strong autumn schedule.

But I couldn’t help but feel the presence of an elephant in the room. A big, fat connected-TV elephant. Reading yesterday’s reports, I was struck by how ITV’s performance was being assessed in the language of the past (perhaps also the current) as opposed to that of the near future. Comparisons versus last year, first quarter versus estimates for second quarter, all wrapped in the context of the “TV ad market”. But things will soon be changing.

Rumours suggest that Apple will be launching its connected TV screen in the first quarter of next year. Samsung, and others, will also be competing aggressively in this space. I have already seen research suggesting consumers are starting to hold back from purchasing new TVs, instead choosing to wait for a better, connected product; drawn towards the enticing prospect of seamless transference between smartphone, tablet and large screen. Those who feel this will be a slow process should remind themselves how rapidly Apple and others have scaled the tablet market – a completely new category. (Or that Xbox already has connected set-top boxes in more than half as many homes as Sky).

So what does this mean for TV? Well, nobody knows exactly but some things are a certainty. Watching TV will become a better experience. We will “search” for programmes rather than “page down”. We will be more likely to choose programmes to watch based on what our friends are currently viewing, as opposed to being directed by channel announcers. Tablets and smartphones will be our remote controls. Our industry will need new ways of understanding and measuring viewing. This will create new TV buying currencies.

None of this is bad. Viewers will be happier and more engaged. Advertisers and agencies will have new opportunities to build richer brand experiences around customers.

But back to ITV’s results. Shouldn’t its performance and share price be understood in the context of the world they are about to inhabit? (By the way, I could say the same the same for all other broadcasters). The “TV ad market” referred to earlier will soon look very different. What will be the role of the ITV1 channel itself be in a connected TV home? To use a retail analogy, what is the value of owning the biggest and best site on the high street if people will soon be buying products out-of-town? This is not to say ITV can’t have a bright future. It can. But I believe now is the time for the analysts to make their assessments within a new context.

However bright TV ad revenue estimates are for the second quarter, I can hear heavy footsteps.

This was originally published on NMA.co.uk

For years, last night’s television has sat alongside the weather as a key element of social currency — the sort of thing that we will talk about around the water cooler.

The growth of social media means that these conversations aren't just happening after the events, but are now happening around the content, and have become much more visible.

If you are a Twitter user, then you are probably familiar with the phenomenon — whether it is tweeting along with "event TV, or simply watching the streams of conversation as a supplementary form of entertainment.

At SMG, we are interested in what this can tell us about the ways different audiences are engaging with different types of programmes, so we have been looking at the top TV programmes (according to BARB's figures) and, using Sysomos’ Social Media analytics tool, analysing both numbers of mentions and the level of online conversations going on around them.

By combining the levels of online conversation with TV audience sizes, we have created a "Social Media Score" for TV programmes. This gives us an indication of levels of audience engagement in the broader conversations surrounding the show.

BBC lead for Christmas week…

For the Christmas week, this is what we saw around the top TV programmes, with Eastenders showing the both the greatest level of activity, and also the highest Social Media Score (which takes its larger audience size into account. With an average of 1,000 tweets per minute, the Christmas Special was clearly taking the conversations beyond the limited reach of the family living rooms.

Programme	Broadcast Date	Audience (000's)	Social Media Score
EASTENDERS	25/12/2011	11,334	18
DOWNTON ABBEY	25/12/2011	11,186	4.3
DOCTOR WHO	25/12/2011	10,772	6.9
NEW YEAR LIVE	31/12/2011	10,670	2.4
SHERLOCK	01/01/2012	10,663	14
CORONATION STREET	25/12/2011	10,226	0.90
ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS	25/12/2011	9,066	3.5
STRICTLY COME DANCING	25/12/2011	8,495	1.2
OUTNUMBERED	24/12/2011	8,474	1.9
THE ROYAL BODYGUARD	26/12/2011	8,347	0.088

Source: BARB, Sysomos, SMG Research

Even though Eastenders and Downton Abbey’s Christmas Day specials were screened at the same time to similar sized audiences, the way those audiences were interacting online were quite different. This backs up what we see about their audiences elsewhere, as Twitter users are more than three times as likely to “specially choose to watch” Eastenders than Downton Abbey (source: TGI survey, Q4 2011)

But the key difference between the two shows becomes more apparent when looking beyond the Christmas special itself — the Downton Abbey series finale in November actually generated more Twitter conversation than the Christmas special, while the Eastenders Christmas special generated about six times as much online conversation as a typical episode. (Conversely, Emmerdale’s Christmas Special failed to generate much online talk, despite a massive peak earlier in the month as Cain’s “Judgement Day” storyline reached its climax.)

Next in the table is Sherlock, generating twice as much conversation as Doctor Who – despite seeing a significant level of catch up viewers who would have missed the chance to join the conversation (who apparently helped to set a record for iPlayer viewing the next day.) (source: Hitwise blog: http://weblogs.hitwise.com/robin-goad/2012/01/sherlock_sets_new_record_for_b.html)

But while large audiences certainly help to fuel large conversations, our metric can also help to identify the smaller audiences who are more highly engaged online with conversations around the programmes. So while Channel 4 might not have made an impact on the top ratings, the Big Fat Quiz of the Year’s 4.35 million viewers generated a lot of online conversation, earning it a Social Media Score of 9.0- more than all but two of the top 10 rated shows.

… But ITV charge into the New Year!

Although the Christmas Eastenders episode topped our social charts, the New Years episode was far less dramatic, with less than a tenth of the amount of online conversation.

Without the Christmas specials to compete with, Sherlock moved up the ratings table despite a slightly smaller audience for the second episode of the series. But only a slight dip in the levels of conversation around the programme earned it a Social Media Score of 12.8 — down from 14 for the New Years Day episode, but taking it to the top of the top 10 programmes by audience size.

But the key point that larger audiences aren't necessary to achieve greater levels of online conversation was echoed again, as "Take Me Out" returned to ITV for a third series. Despite an audience of less than half of the Eastenders Christmas special, it generated more online activity with almost 75,000 tweets about the programme, reflecting in a Social media Score of 53.8 - our highest reported score yet. Although the level of conversation peaked during the show itself, there were significant mentions of the show both the day before and the day after the show itself, showing a level of ongoing converation around the show. Again, the conversations weren't just limited to the time — or even day — of broadcast, but were ongoing throughout the week.

The final episode of the series of Sherlock might not have grown the audience, but the level of activity went through the roof with nearly 100,000 tweets on the day of the broadcast and almost as many again over the course of the week, earning it a Social Media Score of 33.3.

The second episode of Take Me Out saw a slightly smaller audience as well as slightly less conversation around the show. However, it would appear that the faithful tweeters were in the remaining audience, as the Social Media Scoring went up to 34.3.

What do we learn about the audiences?

Obviously, a quantitative metric like this doesn't account for a number of factors that might affect the levels of online conversation. Does a programme have a strong storyline, or characters who give the audience something to talk about? Is the show promoting a hashtag on-screen to encourage viewer involvement, or running an official Twitter account to provide additional stimulus for conversation? These are things that we plan to investigate in due course — but in the meantime, some interesting factors are emerging from the numbers. For example, looking at the types of audiences that lead to higher levels of conversations, it would be fairly predictable to say that shows with a larger younger audience would have a greater level of online chatter around them, but we are starting to see patterns that suggest that it isn't just the size of the younger audience, but rather the general profile of the audience that correlates best to the volume of conversation.

A guest post from VivaKi's Paul Silver, Head of Product for AOD UK. You can follow him on Twitter- @ThePaulSilver

Online Video is at an interesting place. It’s poised to accelerate digital spending over the next few years. But it’s stuttering somewhat. Given the time of year, this is not about predictions, but what needs to change if Video is to fulfil its promise.

Planning

Advertisers and agencies alike need to change their planning mentality when it comes to Video. Rule number 1, it is not TV so why plan like it is? Video planning is still dominated by replicating a TV spot buy online. In a world where we now have the ability to address and optimise at scale, why create a plan that is not suited to the strengths of the medium? The Video industry needs to embrace the move to programmatic, audience led buying. There are new ways to reach and engage audiences; TV targeting models simply are not transferable.

We also need to define premium. Advertisers (rightly so) are sensitive about content and environment but to the detriment of innovation. It seems to be a belief that only long form broadcaster content is deemed premium. Id argue that reaching & captivating your precise audience and demonstrating engagement and interaction would be a premium buy? I’m not discounting the value of broadcaster content, but it should sit within a blended schedule that really maximises audience reach and the ability to optimise.

Personalising

A lot of our research from The Pool suggests users want a different online experience, different from TV. All the more reason why we should not be repurposing a TV strategy online. Users want personalisation, they want more relevancy. Our research has shown that if ads are more relevant, users are more engaged. Users understand the web economy; if they need to be exposed to advertising in exchange for content, they want it more tailored. This is another reason why innovation is needed. A change in the way we serve ads, using data (in the same way we do for Display) to customise creatives on the fly. We simply have to.

Measurement

Speaking of optimising brings me onto a fairly contentious subject: No one knows how to measure video. Over the past few months I’ve had a lot of dialogue and conversation with those within the video space and the feeling i’m getting is we buy long form content because it dovetails nicely with our TV spot buying schedules. This would then assume that it’s a reach and frequency game against an audience. However, when we start looking at reaching a precise audience, using actual data, the goalposts move. Buyers look at clicks. Clicks are the worst metric to evaluate as a measure of success for Video. Users who click are a) from a certain type of environment and tend to be a consistent type of demographic and b) are not being subjected and impacted by your advertising. Video is truly about upper funnel engagement. Regardless of whether it’s on your mobile, desktop, tablet, connected TV. Those that do click also drive, invariably, terrible bounce rates. What about connected TVs? We are already accessing inventory within these platforms. Do we expect users to start clicking on TVs??

The problem is that there is not a common currency. And whilst there is not a 100% robust methodology to bridge TV to Video using a GRP, we should be evaluating success on engagement and cost per engagement. If that happens within long form content, short form content, it should not matter. You’re reaching your audience and optimising to engagement. If ITV, et al can outperform all else on a cost per engagement model then great.

Buying

Video is still dominated by the old guard approaches to trading. There is a fear to change and innovate and often it is misplaced, perceived fear. Video publishers look at the display space with the excess volume of inventory and fear that Video will become a race to the bottom. This is not the case. You remove UGC out of the equation and you have a model that is prime for biddable trading. You have constricted supply with an increasing demand for that inventory. Anyone knows this will lead to increased pricing. Addressable video is about improving relevancy for the advertiser and rewarding the publisher appropriately. With improved relevancy and reduced wastage means less ads required to make the impact. Less ads at higher yield means a better user experience. A better user experience means more returning visitors. And then the process repeats itself.

Trading Video over a table is not the future digital model. It will become platform based. It will become technologically enabled. But as to the reasons above, this isn’t a bad thing. It doesn’t mean prices race to the bottom. Change is happening and it’s a positive thing which needs to be embraced. At Audience on Demand we are 100% committed to making the Video space more efficient, more scalable and ultimately more rewarding for publisher and advertiser alike.

Originally posted at Marco Bertozzi's Bytesize