May 132012



Presenting Media140 - Photo: The Cut Creative, Perth

I keynoted at the Media140 conference three weeks ago (26 Apr 2012) wearing my ABC Exec Producer TV Multi Platform hat. Now responsible for non-kids ABC TV online & mobile offerings & TV mobile and social strategy my 20 minute talk was rather focused on the high level challenges for broadcasters trying to truly integrate fiction, factual and entertainment with social, mobile and 2nd screen (or synch services). The transcript, slideshare and more ore detail follow but first…

Absent note

…apologies to regular readers for my long absence from post on this blog. I started an ABC role back in October which overlapped with me running the Screen Australia StoryLabs weeks and as well as tidying up and finishing a range of commercial projects meant actually talking/blogging about all the stuff I have been doing in long form, has been tricky – plus there are confidentialities to take into account. The adage certainly holds true those who can, do, those who can’t, write long blog posts or podcasts on the topic 🙂 Might get flamed on that one, but I think having an hour or two to sit and post is a luxury. In other full time roles I still manage to provide a commentary into the cloud but the ABC is particularly under resourced in multi platform areas with many folk working beyond the call of duty. I am also taking advantage of my partner Laurel Papworthaway, spending a few weeks on a pilgrimage across the Camino in Spain, and doing very well with it.

Talk intro – the challenge, the hybrid and the prototyping

Also like most big media organisations the ABC is a mirror of the external larger world itself. There are silo’s, politics, technical differences across the divisions, resource scarcity, diluted budgets and linear controllers / commissioners who all need to be sold on the importance of Multi Platform and the potential of different types of services. But that means a good part of my role inside the ABC is very similar to my BBC Senior Dev Producer role, to evangelise but also implement new services. That means I am exposed to the key challenges in terms of merging or hybridising broadcast and on-demand TV with some of the key driving forces outside a broadcasters world. Without drilling down into the detail (or breaking any confidentiality!) the top level challenges for all traditionally one-way media organisations is:

  • Sorry too busy to talk – We don’t have enough people resources, social media staff, to engage in widespread, authentic, editorial conversation with our audience/users
  • Bolt on effect – Our massive internal technical infrastructure/s can’t be glued to always new, transient, multiple external services/APIs
  • That’s they way it is done – We have decades old editorial & commissioning processes in place and until any big multi-platform ‘story-telling’ breakthroughs we will need convincing of a reason for changing that
  • Multi platform and social media is really about marketing isn’t it and therefore warrants those types of relatively small budgets
  • Sure everyone is shifting attention to mobile & social but until there is zero people watching our main channels we have a job to do!
  • Rights are not set up for multi platform, period. Expensively produced linear video leads, the rest follows, still.
  • and the list goes on and on

Ok I am being a little provocative and at the ABC, I and many others are very aware of the challenges and getting on with the changes required. Alongside managing producers and resources I am able to run group workshops internally with the key show creatives and together (vs telling what we should be doing!) to slowly move forward. I also have a great role in developing working prototypes (and final services) of synchronous 2nd screen and social mobile services. Being several months into these,  I also refer to at the end of my talk of the key differences between vanilla social TV, content owner social TV, content owner driven 2nd screen storytelling and the hybrid of all of them. When someone is engaged with a great synch story experience of say tablet against TV it makes absolute sense to include social elements, for them to invite and share that experience.

I also mentioned in the talk and interviews around it about the need for content owners and broadcasters to be driving the 2nd screen experience – these have to be truly integrated story experience and although there is value in trying to layer or bolt on these synchronous services. Although voting, polling, surveying type services can work, ideally with presenter driven call to actions, many well written pieces of video do not have much ‘space’ for the interaction (or parallel narratives to ideally slot in). There are two arguments to that. Firstly formulaic storytelling combined with the distractions our already existing 2nd screen habit means we are constantly snacking on our 2nd screen anyway and ‘missing’ the important bits of the show. Secondly, in a world where on-demand, when you want it, watching is so ubiquitous, I am devising several formats where the linear video is simple paused and the interactive component has its own space to breathe in this time frozen moments. I am suggesting in all my meetings with show creatives that if possible, the best approach is to design from the ground up. But that then moves into eons old ‘commissioning’ processes and for now I won’t go there, perhaps later…OK onto the talk

Hello, Good Morning and Welcome

It was great to be in Perth again with a very enthusiastic crowd, which speaking to the folks there, encompassed most of the digital fraternity it seemed. There were many folk live blogging the event and my talk (e.g.: Sarah Tierney and Matthew Allen), I did a few small interviews (e.g.: Western Australian / Yahoo)  and at least 60% of the audience tweeting. Media140 is the brainchild of Andrew Gregson and the event was very well organised, technically and management wise. The slides below were presented on my new iPad (3) so hopefully the formatting came across OK. Transcription follows the slides

Continue reading »

Apr 072009

With my Director of the Australian Laboratory for Advanced Media Production hat on I often front our workshops and seminars with a kind of ‘trawl’ across the area being presented by specialist speakers. This means a rather high level view of services, key examples and robust case studies that provide a foundation for the other speakers and also a taxonomy, a shared language, for any later workshop elements. There have been two in the last two weeks on TV 2.0 and Documentary 2.0: Serious Games and I have just put my slides up on slideshare – embedded below. The two below are an interesting pair.

tribalisationI believe that these two areas of transition clearly indicate the major shifts taking place at the moment, already predicated as you see in the Marshall McLuhan clip. The first in this post is the TV form which is now being developed and evolved by global online communities deciding on the more social, tribal (niche) and participatory video format over the regimented, formulaic, commercially focused TV we have seen unchanged on prime time in the past 30 years. The second presentation below is on Serious Games or Documentary 2.0, the nature of learning about real world issues, the evolution from passive through to play. Rather than being force fed a series of edited perspectives in traditional documentary TV style, now we immerse ourselves in the dilemma, the scenarios and understand them by (as I point out in the presentation reference to Edgar Dales Cone from 1946) Direct Purposeful Experience. First though…

Television 2.0 – The Latest Innovations in Online Video The first seminar was looking at the future of online video from a TV 2.0, participatory and socialized TV perspective. Again the issue here was a definition of TV followed by some kind of structure on which to talk about the many and various incarnations of ‘the form’ as it starts to spill out across online communities and portals.

What is TV?

  • The device or screen?
  • The distribution channel?
  • The form, types of programmes?
  • What is that form? “Popularist, often live, linear video or something far more social & interactive?”

Breaking the hundreds of examples of TV moving from broadcast to shared, socialized and participatory into meaningful categories was a problem so I stuck to three simple ones:

One-to-many broadcast

  • Reversioned TV
  • Socialised TV

Many-to-many & 2 way

  • Participatory TV shared video content. Democratized, disintermediated, de-attached

Measurability – New Monetization models – value add & innovative services around the video content e.g.: personalization

Before my embedded slideshow (which includes ‘comic-style bubble’ commentary done quickly after the event!) I embed a short clip (which I showed from around 3:38 onwards) featuring a real futurist Marshall McLuhan whose now ancient words provided some sobering perspective to my talk about the disintermediation of TV and other media forms. We all talk long and hard about the new social paradigms but 50 years ago this was already clearly in the zeitgeist – albeit referring to rather scarce distribution channels but highly portentious of where we are close to being now (thinks ‘twitter’ as the drumming 🙂

and for those who think the decline of print is a 2000’s thing here is some of the latter part of the interview (remember from 49 years ago!) that I didn’t have time to show –

Interviewer “Look lets back up a bit Marshall. If more books are being used, more being sold, the libraries are crowded they are busy, how can it be said, aside from what ever else is happening, we are moving out of a print culture?

McLuhan “As John said books are still very important but their role is changing. The nature of their importance is changing. Remember that books were our first teaching machine and during the Renaissance our only teaching machine. Books are what gave the renaissance its peculiar stance. We had to see the world and others through the printed line on the page but today there are many media of information, many teaching machines.”

Interviewer “By teaching machines I presume you are not only referring to those found in the classroom?”

McLuhan “No, we learn everywhere. The books role has diminished. Because of all the other actors it’s no longer King but subject…Notice the shift in the image. From the assembly line stretched out, events taking place one at a time to the modern automated complex where things happen all at once. Bang. Not a line but a field. This applies not only to products but to people. The line, the individual, the event was the book. The field, the all-at-once, the tribal drum – the new medium”

Documentary 2.0 – Serious Games Seminar Workshop

My introduction to the wonderful world of Serious Games wasn’t without its challenges. Firstly the deeper you look into the area the more you discover a veritable black hole of titles. Literally thousands of console, 2D web based, 3D MMOGs, CD ROMs, locative play, connected DVD’s, Social network widgets, educational virtual worlds – endless places that serious play or games exist or have existed. But as well as the quantity problem we have the issue of how to classify them, break them down into meaningful ‘chunks’ so we can understand them. Finally there is the problem of definition – what exactly is a serious game? So before the embedded slideshow – I pulled out a little definition I came up with and more importantly a taxonomy which we used in the workshop.

Generic definitions from others

  • Games that are NOT entertainment ?
  • Games that are simulations ?
  • Games that are: infotainment, edutainment, advergames, therapeutic, propaganda…?
  • Games that are used by education, training, health, public policy, defense, and strategic communication ?

My definition

  • Goal orientated ‘play’, often in real world scenarios, intended to ‘improve’ the player/s knowledge, awareness or skills

OK my definition could feasibly include ‘entertainment’ titles but it does raise the question, is a game such as GTA4 or Mirror’s Edge or Assassins Creed actually providing real world training? I would say to a large extent yes – so the field is even broader. So the taxonomy I developed is focused on the intention of the game. What did the creators ‘intend’ the game to achieve, what result would be achieved for the player/s. I developed this list and naturally found a few games overlapped across some of the areas but surprisingly a lot less than broad definitions such as ‘edutainment’! Here is the list (followed by the actual slideshow with examples of each area):

Gary’s Top Ten – Serious Game Taxonomy YOUR INTENTION WITH YOUR GAME IS TO:

  1. raise AWARENESS of issues
  2. train MOTOR functions
  3. develop SOCIAL skills
  4. develop sudden onset CRISES response skills
  5. develop HUMAN CAPITAL and workforce
  6. improve MIND & BODY
  7. develop BUSINESS prowess
  8. improve ORGANIZATIONAL management
  9. improve CREATIVITY
  10. impart KNOWLEDGE
View more presentations from Gary Hayes.

View more presentations from Gary Hayes.

May 142008

Currently doing some talks about online buzz and the ‘network’ and thought I would share some of those cute charts I threw together to illustrate a few angles. Firstly though just wanted to get out there a simple view/evolutionary map of the track we are on, the out-of-control train without brakes hurtling towards an always-on, networked speck of cosmic dust, we call home. To warm you up before the here and now stuff, some simple jumps to illustrate this continuum (note: step 12 onwards gets a little space cadet! but you will see the link 🙂 –

  1. The dawn of man, the darkest age, little or no communication
  2. The age of non-verbal, small geographically challenged, tribal/family communities
  3. A common verbal language – communities expand, explore and spread ideas very slowly around the globe
  4. Stories, beliefs and knowledge shared slowly via printed material
  5. Life and ideas from one perspective captured on film and played back to many, delayed and editorialized by a select few
  6. Audio stories as opinions spread by a few, live, in real time, one to many via voice only broadcast, radio
  7. Live cameras connect to broadcast towers and satellites, the world focuses on few to many TV – they also plays stored media to increase stickiness
  8. Early copper internet starts to carry text, audio and grainy video, pushed at computer users – web 1.0
  9. Fiber and faster copper broadband gradually makes all stored content immediately available replacing TV and Radio while computers become mobile
  10. Communities form and connect globally albeit asynchronously, leaving ideas around the web to share and expand – web 2.0
  11. The web becomes more and more instantaneous as text, audio and video are always on, and crude virtual worlds for synchronous co-creative interaction – web 3.0
  12. A fork in the road – part of the world goes into vivid real time virtual spaces as fully rendered, photo realistic avatars, their physical bodies mapped in real time from their physical selves – web 4.0
  13. On the other fork mobile interfaces move from the hand driven mobiles to direct brain (thought) connection – everyone on the planet in real time can instantly communicate with everyone else via thought, prefacing the thought with recipient/s, name, friends, family, country, world and voila – web 5.0
  14. Humanity, connected as one consciousness, takes a leap forward to level 2

OK bit of a jump from Twitter to WiFi brain ‘thought chatter’ connectors between us all but you get the gist 🙂 Back to now, somewhere between 10 to 12 and a few slides I have been using alongside the web 2.0 myth image of last year and a few others to be blogged to help illustrate the wonderfully wacky sharing world of web 2.0.

Wonderful Web 2.0 © Gary Hayes 2008

The first diagram above shows the components of web 2.0 with axes of synch/asynch on the horizontal and one to many and many to many on the vertical axis – all of the components can be delivered to the four screens indicated on the top left. It is primarily intended to show that the blue (text/conversation) and purple (richer media) web 2.0 components are often combined to create a well rounded social network portal. The yellow blocks are messengers, digg and rss which act as glue and navigation.

This series of diagrams below, spheres of influence, below is a quick stab showing at a very high level (read: 101 for newbs) how web 2.0 services cause flocking, sharing and interconnectivity.

Here we have the people (ok my pic of Central Station in NY!), a friend and family core and ripples of connection/separation spiralling outwards.

A metaphoric web over the top – ideally a 3D diagram would make more sense but this suggests a network.

Connections are limited to one-to-one (eg: person to company or property) in a non-web 2.0 world

The addition of three example web 2.0 components of video and photo sharing plus combination social network shows how a flocking occurs as well as more interconnectivity stimulated through those portals. Obviously the components would be interconnected and overlap etc:

Showing how ‘you’ via your blogs, pod and vod casts, tweets, comments and ratings generate links to and from you. The more active you are the more you grow and strengthen the ‘neural’ connections.

A final diagram meant to illustrate the simple idea that once you are established as a micro web 2.0 component you generate specific links directly to you – likely to be niche interest.

Posted by Gary Hayes ©2008