The term convergence may have gone in and out of fashion over the past ten years, but it’s pretty clear that it’s what the future holds for television. What’s less clear is who’s going to be running that future...

By Michael Nutley of

[Register and post your own comments on this article below...]

There have been a number of events and announcements over the past month that have brought this question back into focus. Firstly, Google announced its video search product. Then NMA reported that Channel 4 had pulled the plug on its interactive TV programming, although it is continuing with interactive advertising.

Discussing Channel 4’s move, chief executive Andy Duncan told NMA that he feels that red button technology is clunky, and that the channel’s interactive priorities lie elsewhere, namely in broadband and mobile. Other channels such as Sky responded by affirming their commitment to iTV, but C4’s decision highlights the fact that the red button is a transitional technology in the development of television.

Google's disruptive Video Search

Where this development might lead was illustrated by Google’s announcement of its video search technology. This is another step towards a TV-on-demand future based on the Internet, and it has the broadcasters worried.

They’re concerned that video search will allow viewers to find whatever they want to watch, at whatever time, making the notion of a channel redundant and destroying their brands. The fundamental unit of television will be the programme.

At a round-table run by the Association of Online Publishers (AOP) before Christmas, representatives from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky voiced their concerns over the potential for Google to become as ubiquitous in allowing people to find video content as it currently is in online content.

Brand identity faces wipeout

Much of the broadcasters’ current experimentation is intended to discover how to preserve their brands in the age of video search. The BBC is currently conducting trials of its Integrated Media Player (iMP), which allows viewers to download the majority of BBC TV and radio programmes up to seven days after they’re broadcast, and Channel 4 is working on a similar initiative.

But it could be that current models for TV channels, which see them broadcasting a mixture of their own productions and those either commissioned from production companies or bought from elsewhere (predominantly the US) are as transient as the red button. What will the term broadcasting even mean in an on-demand world?

Rights holders' agreement & the "long tail"

Once again, it will come back to the rights. Companies that own a large back-catalogue of programmes could effectively become retailers of content on demand, whether they are commissioners or producers, taking advantage of the “long tail” effect. This is a side effect of the rise of e-tail compared to conventional shopping. If an etailer can stock a large enough selection of content, the aggregated sales of all the books, say, or music outside the best-seller lists is greater than that of the best-sellers.

Video-on-demand opens up the prospect of the long tail to television content. And the only way for viewers to navigate that long tail and find what they want to watch will be through search engines. That’s why the video search capabilities of Google and Blinkx are so important.

But there is still a question about how consumers relate to search brands. Do they feel the search engine is responsible for the content they wanted, as a Google employee suggested to me last week? Or do they see search engines as mere conduits for other people’s information? If you search for TV content via a search engine, which brand is more important, the search engine’s, or the producer’s?

Michael Nutley is the editor of New Media Age.