The mistake of looking at the new in terms of the old
Steve Safran June 21st, 2007
(This column originally appeared in this week’s edition of the AR&D Media 2.0 Intel Report.)
When a new technology comes along, the classic mistake is to look at it in terms of an old technology. TiVo? It’s just a VCR with a hard drive. Apple TV? A confusing VCR. iPods? Walkmans that hold more songs. The Slingbox? A TiVo that … uh… well, it won’t matter anyway because not that many people will use it.
Any one of these new devices or technologies that emerges does not replace a previous technology. But - and this is really important - each adds to a constellation that slowly replaces the old guard. And that starts to sneak up on people who aren’t paying attention to the big picture.
For years, broadcasters and cable operators sniffed at TiVo. How many times did you hear about how a tiny handful of people owned TiVos? Then, suddenly - panic. “People aren’t watching ads anymore!” “We need TiVo-proof ads!” Cable and satellite companies start offering DVRs in their boxes. TiVo is not a VCR. It turns you into your own network, with ease.
TiVo is a “timeshifter.” Slingbox is a “placeshifter.” I hook it up to my cable box and suddenly I can watch my shows wherever I go, on my computer or my mobile phone. Stuck in an airport recently, I watched a Red Sox game on my phone. Do millions of homes have a Slingbox? Nope. Is it a harbinger of things to come? You bet.
Apple TV will not get universal acceptance, either. But it’s a piece of the “You Network.” It will get a considerable share of the iTunes audience that wants to watch their videos on their televisions. It’s also cutting deals with YouTube and other online video companies. A cable killer? No. Another small bite out of the pie? Yes.
It’s easy to look at any emerging technology and say “that won’t replace x” or “that didn’t work in 1995.” Make no mistake - some new products succeed, and many more fail. The challenge facing TV is to keep our eye on the overall situation - how do each of these pieces complete the puzzle? How do they change the industry as a whole? And most important, the challenge is creating content and meeting the demand that each of these distributed media platforms requires.
3 Comments Add your own
1. ! | June 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
i would recommend everyone take the opportunity to use the handy link provided to read the entire newsletter…these guys do a good one each week.
maybe bookmark it.
2. Frank Catalano | June 21st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Steve, I’m afraid there’s the potential of confusing the need for customer appeal with actual industry impact. The reason new advances are referred to in terms of the familiar is comfort for the customer. Customers always say they want something new and revolutionary. But give them that, without putting in a bridge to what they understand, and it can easily fail. Thus, why Scott Cook at Intuit decided to promote Quicken as a “checkbook on a computer.” Why TiVo is a “VCR on a hard drive.” Give the customer the conceptual bridge, and they feel it’s a safe incremental purchase. Then they see the true value and the fire of word-of-mouth recommendation takes over.
Where this goes wrong is when those in the industry affected confuse the marketing approach — which is necessary to move beyond the early adopter to the true mass market — with the true potential impact. That’s a kind of insider denial. But I wouldn’t dismiss the marketing approach. It’s what’s required to make something really new, really palatable to a mass audience that would rather play it safe and move ahead incrementally.
I do agree completely that every new media development that takes off narrows the appeal of the “mass” media that came before it. Those earlier media, or media devices, must either focus really well on what they do, or go the way of the chautauqua.
3. Andrew Deal | June 25th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Frank.
I have been with Steve when he has made your same argument. It is agreed that the high concept analogy is a critical part of creating a new market for a new need people don’t even yet realize they have yet.
Steve’s point as I see it here is that the old guard, just like any of us who don’t embrace change, will stereotype new things with a defensive bias that only holds on a micro level, not on the macro.
For what it’s worth, change itself is ramping up at a geometric pace, and all of us who include forecasting of any kind into our business planning must allow for what I describe as “unprecedented resistance trends” as a big part of our strategic thinking. When I see news about the funding of some projects that to me don’t take this into account, I wonder what kind of feeding frenzy the tech and capital community are in.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed