This article discusses the future of social TV, considering new technologies and emerging trends within a 'Technology, Behaviour, Data' (TBD) framework. Social TV technology performs strongly, but faces issues around engaging with consumer needs. Because the technology is often difficult to use and users have limited understanding, only consumers very interested in a brand/product will use it. It is argued that though there is a great deal of data surrounding social TV, it does not offer full understanding of consumer needs. It is important that marketers understand the context in which screens are being used in order to target consumers appropriately. Need more information? : http://www.hereforth.com Reproduced with permission of Admap, the world’s primary source of strategies for effective advertising, marketing and research. To subscribe visit www.warc.com/admap. © Copyright Admap. Creative Commons License

1. The future of
Social TV
Social TV often falls
short in matching
technology to
consumer needs. The
success of Google
Glass may be the key
to the medium’s future,
argues Paul Armstrong
of Digital Orange
Consulting
W
ith social media ad
format spend equating
to around £250 million
of the £3 billion total
digital adspend (Jan-June
2013, IAB) – a growth of 53% – it’s easy
to see why Social TV is increasingly getting
people excited and nervous at the same
time. What with the rise of binge viewing,
streaming services like Netflix exploding
and new disruptive technologies like Aereo
emerging, TV is not having an easy ride as
it struggles to move fully into digital, retain
control and yet give the consumer what they
want. Social TV (also referred to as ‘secondscreening’), in particular, is on the lips of
many people as we start 2014 and for good
reason; mobile device penetration, tablet use
and social platform ubiquity all continue to
point northwards with increasingly complex
transactions previously saved for the desktop
(including banking and shopping) now
becoming commonplace while on the move
or completing a second activity. At least,
that’s what many are being led to believe.
Using the simple framework I devised
– Technology, Behaviour, Data (TBD) – to
evaluate ideas, platforms, campaigns – pretty
much anything – it is clear to see that Social
TV has some issues.
T
ECHNOLOGY – CAN THE
TECHNOLOGY DO WHAT YOU
ARE ASKING IT TO?
Currently, the short answer to this is a
soft yes (it is being refined and improved),
although no app out there has the right
mix to be close to being considered the
killer app and show-specific apps don’t
work for enough people to be significant
sources of return (at least at the present
time). Technology in this area, loosely, can
be pushed into one of four areas: audiorecognition, image-recognition, motiondetection and augmented reality.
The issue is less around whether the
technologies work – we know they do – it’s
matching them with the need states of the
consumer that appears to be the challenge.
For example, Shazam could be said to be the
perfect audio-recognition app but beyond
this, its use is minimal. Most people don’t
know it also works with TV programmes
unless significant prompts are given. Between
this and user experience – often with
bafflingly cluttered interfaces – it’s not a
pretty picture for most second-screen apps.
B
EHAVIOUR – CAN THE PEOPLE
DO WHAT YOU ARE ASKING
THEM TO?
The technology is clunky and usually
uninspiring to use – in essence, you have
to be a superfan to follow the white rabbit
down the hole. This is a big part of the issue
many have with Social TV, it’s running before
it can walk and, yet, while the technology is
available it often requires overt actions, firing
up a specific app or worse downloading a
bespoke app from scratch in order to even
begin the next step. The problem many have
is that a) scaling any mobile technology is
expensive, b) user understanding is often not
there or c) the utility is overshadowed by
content or usability issues.
D
ATA – WILL ENOUGH
PEOPLE DO WHAT YOU
WANT THEM TO DO?
This is where context is key; Social TV
has a lot of data floating around that isn’t
comparable. A glaringly simple example of
this is that Facebook is around five times
the size of Twitter for active monthly users
and has – shockingly – according to some
interesting research from Trendrr (preacquisition), around five times the activity
of Twitter. So the potential is certainly
there, what about actual use? This picture
is not so rosy. According to Ofcom, the
data is telling a simple story: 25% of the UK
regularly uses a second screen as they watch
TV (44% for younger people), 22% of those
with tablets watch different content in the
same room as others and 10% watch in the
bath. Diving deeper into actual observed
behaviour, it is clear from the SecondSync’s
Leaderboard (Twitter data) that there is a
clear difference when it comes to the sexes
and second-screen behaviour – a mere 20%
of the top 10 shows listed between 28th
October and 6th November 2013 had a male

2. “ here are many independent apps
T
that… in some ways, provide more
opportunities for brands beyond reach”
majority tweet ratio. That’s significant insight
for any marketer looking to understand
and take advantage of an area. In essence,
understanding where the person is, who they
are with and why they are watching is as
important as who they are and what they are
watching.
While the technology is available, the
vast majority of apps focus on awareness
and emotional connections, not particularly
surprising, considering the content that is
currently most engaged with – but it does
show the potential and the need to be more
ruthless when it comes to the sales process.
People are willing to buy via mobile; there
are understood, trusted paths (Amazon,
Apple etc.), the issue is more about margins
and rights and user-interface issues for many
of these apps.
For an example of a product that passes
TBD with flying colours, consider Shazam
(the audio-recognition application). While
much more now than a simple audio
recognition platform, it balances the TBD
framework perfectly. Technologically, the
product worked – it wasn’t perfect but it
was mainly down to the user’s location
rather than a poor system. Behaviour-wise
it was bang on the money, people needed to
know information and it fulfilled that need
(Shazam says its users are currently tagging
10 million songs, shows and ads a day – 8%
are even going through to purchase directly
via the app). Data-wise it adds up, identifying
music is a common need and, as of July 2013,
more than 70 million use Shazam monthly
(+350 million users in total). It’s a case of
balance – an important one. One element
cannot outweigh the others too much or it
all falls down.
Agency C-suite executives I have spoken
with recently all agree Social TV is an area
they are keeping a watchful eye over as we
move into 2014 and expect both Facebook
Google Glass: has yet to become a commercial project, but presents the biggest opportunity to the Social TV market

3. Admap propogates thought leadership in brand communications and is published
monthly in print and on the iPad. To subscribe visit www.warc.com/myadmap
and Twitter to make great strides in the
coming months, once the numerous ducks
they have acquired or announced recently
align. Twitter has moved aggressively in this
field, recently buying Bluefin Labs, Trendrr
and announced a partnership with Nielsen
that certainly got brands and agencies
excited. In the other corner, Facebook has
created new ad types, introduced hashtags
and created new data-streams for broadcast
and online outlets to use, to show what is
happening on Facebook.
The issue with these technologies and
products is that they focus on identifying
the programme and not the need state (or
place) the person is in. Instead the individual
becomes a somewhat faceless person that is
lumped into generalised buckets. I’d like to
see an app ask a person where he or she is
and appropriately target, based on being out
and about, at home, in an airport. It’s more
of an nudge than a disruption – easy to say
and hard to do, but don’t forget people’s
relationship with their tablet is possibly
more intimate than their smartphone, based
on Gartner research that says 45% of people
do not share their tablet with others.
Thinking Twitter and Facebook are the
only players worth considering would be
a mistake. There are many independent
apps that are an integral part of the
ecosystem and, in some ways, provide more
opportunities for brands beyond reach.
As with Social Commerce – the richest
opportunities often lie outside the big guy’s
sandpit. For Social TV, the opportunities
lie in two key areas: 1) brands engaging
with viewers, extending the ad (or service)
experience, perhaps through gamification or
additional content and 2) direct commerce
transactions using various formats of cues or
metadata (both hidden or overtly provided
by the user).
Buying through your smartphone totally
fits the TBD model – you are in the right
state, the technology is there and all is
well. This isn’t the case for Social TV – it’s
an interruption and, most importantly, it
requires massive back-end integration with
the retailer. Think about buying a jumper…
a person needs to be specific about size,
colour, delivery and quite a few other
things before that item is on its way. In
time, I suspect, all these things are able to
be overcome but, for now (and I suspect
for the foreseeable future), the Social TV
purchase route will be a reminder and/or
showrooming experience for the majority. In
this case, product placement has a significant
future ahead of it.
CONCLUSIONS
watched closely by many in the industry as –
while it’s perhaps not the most original (or
scalable) idea – it just may become the most
adopted. Who doesn’t like to be rewarded
and choose that reward based on behaviour
they don’t have to alter too much?
For Social TV, the future is Amara’s
Law
The future for Social TV is much hyped and
anything but certain, however the promise
is huge; Gartner predicts the ‘infotainment’
market will swell to $3 trillion by 2015.
However, there are numerous and significant
obstacles for Social TV to overcome before
it becomes mainstream and enters its
Primetime. The truth is second-screening is
nothing new, people have been tuning out,
switching over, discussing, finding ads and
content in other places for years – Social
TV is simply an evolution of this behaviour.
Instead of discussing the second-screen,
we should be talking about the best screen
available.
Project Glass from Google has yet to
become a commercial product and, yet,
presents the biggest opportunity to this
market by far if adopted en masse (and that’s
a big if). If this scenario is the case then the
future most certainly is TBD.

Data is the best and worst thing
about Social TV
The biggest boon to making things social
is the data that can be gleaned from it, the
trouble is, according to IPA Touchpoint
data, not everyone is actively participating
and those that do, over-index massively.
Approximately 10 million people are currently
using Twitter each month, according to
comScore, that’s less than 20% of the UK’s
population. While nothing to sniff at, it’s
hardly a representative sample and when you
factor in the internet ‘Law’ (90:9:1 – whereby
for websites where users can both create and
edit content, 1% of people create content,
9% edit or modify that content, and 90% view
the content without contributing )you begin
to have a real issue when you make decisions
based on a sample like this.

Reward (or gamification) may sadly
be the future for the majority
Viggle has created an interesting model
– in essence, TV watching equals points,
points equals real-world giftcards and other
experiences. It’s a smart model that is being

This article was first published in
Admap magazine January 2014 ©Warc
www.warc.com/admap