His pitch was interesting and persuasive, full of data on how mobile apps generate far more engagement than online rich media or even (so he claimed) TV.

He started by saying that iPads were massively dominant in the world of tablet computers. And to prove this he asked how many people in the room had iPads. Everyone in the room, apart from me, put their hands up. Theo turned to me with a sad smile and admitted that iPad use wasn’t universal yet.

At that point I admitted that I did have a tablet, but that it was a Samsung Galaxy (bought because it fits nicely into my jacket pocket). And therein lies a moral or two, I think.

First of all, don’t assume that because almost all London media types have an iPad it means that everyone has one. While smart phone possession is on the way to becoming ubiquitous in the UK (although even that will take a few years yet), tablet possession is limited to a small minority: 7.5% of the adult population this autumn according to Kantar.

And second don’t assume that all tablets are iPads. While no doubt the iPad is dominant in the UK market with nearly 75% market share, the market is changing fast and Apple may well see a market share nearer 50% within the next year or two.

The marketplace for apps though is different. In the smart phone market, iOS is far less dominant and Android devices lead Apple strongly. That is reflected in app downloads with Ovum predicting that 2011 will see over 8 billion Android app downloads compared with 6 billion iOS app downloads. And that difference is only set to widen.

But back to Theo. His proposition was this. TV is a great medium for driving emotion, but it is a one way medium. Online is a two way medium, but poor at driving emotional story telling. But iPad apps take the best of both worlds being both emotionally engaging and two way.

Because of this, long form ads work well on the iPad – they show a 6% click through rate and indeed time spent on an iPad ad is on average 60 seconds compared with 9 seconds on a web based rich media ad. The examples Theo showed us, ads for a car and a camera, bore out the potential.

Those are powerful data to support using iPad apps (and I suppose apps on any tablet device) as an advertising vehicle. So why is it that tablet apps are so engaging?

Accurate targeting, said Theo. And because the ads are intuitive and fun. And because you can touch the ads.

I’m not convinced that accurate targeting would have such a massive effect although I am sure it has some. It probably does enhance click through rate (although those of us with long memories can remember the (brief) time that online ads had similar CTRs).

But I think perhaps it is the game like nature of the ads that generates that length of engagement. And that is of course helped by the fact that you can touch the screen, and also because you are holding the device in your hands so that it is physically closer to you.

So perhaps it isn’t surprising that game-like ads do work well on a tablet.

But creating good interaction is difficult, risky and expensive. And it is not going to be appropriate for every brand. So much digital advertising (especially as TV advertising isn’t going to disappear any day soon) will remain as long form video.

The question for Theo is, will video ads on a tablet drive engagement, or will advertisers who want to use this format be forced into using “advergaming”. If that is the case then the market for tablet advertising must surely be limited.

It won’t be sufficient to deliver “everything we love about TV and about the internet on one screen”. Existing content models (web and linear TV) won’t be sufficient to drive consumers to connected TV systems.

To provide a truly immersive user experience, we need new models of content and new interfaces. And that in turn means we need new hardware and software.

What sort of new content? Well, it’s unlikely simply to be a Twitter feed scrolling underneath a linear programme. And it’s even less likely to be email or banking, which are too complex for a lean back environment (never mind the privacy issues). “Social” TV content may well play a part so that we can share our thoughts about programming with our friends and like minded people. More interesting though will be new ways of enabling people to “participate” in content – through games, voting and even choice.

We’ll need to see new interfaces too. For instance inputting text from 3 meters away is difficult with a pointing device or other remote control. Standards to make text imput (essential to many interactions) easy are required. There are at least some ways of reducing the problems here.

At Amberlight we have recently run a small research project looking at this area. A few general guidelines for text input were developed:

1. Predictive text systems make users of smart TV applications much more efficient
2. Search results can be used very effecively to promote serendipity and content discovery
3. Showing people an interactive A to Z grid of letters (as opposed to a querty keyboard) is the best way of promoting efficient text entry
4. The whole system, including the remote control, should be simplified as far as possible in order to promote use: Apple TV scores really well in this regard
5. Viewers should be able to control the cursor on the screen via the remote control; as much flexibility as possible should be given to them to do this
6. Viewers should be able to edit text, including adding and deleting words, as easily as possible: cursor control helps with this
7. People should not be forced to read a lot of text as they are likely to ignore it
8. Plain and simple English should be used in all labels and instructions

No doubt over time we will see more extensive guidelines being developed for text input and many other aspects of smart TV. The industry is still learning. What is important though is that hardware manuracturers, service providers and programme makers don’t assume that technology will solve all the issues. Keeping an eye on the consumer will be pretty important too!

KPMG asked people why they prefer to consume media offline. Many people chose as a reason “I would rather watch TV and films on my TV than on a computer”.

Presumably the main reason for this is screen size: laptops and iPads just don’t have the same visual (or indeed aural) impact as a 40″+ TV screen.

Screen size will inevitably be over-ridden when someone needs to access catch up TV. But I am coming across more and more people during research for whom the convenience of having a tab or a laptop and being able to watch TV wherever they want to in the house outweighs screen size.

In part this is a function of broadband speeds, in part the increase in domestic wireless connections, and in part better screen technologies.

And of course a portable computer does enable you, while you are watching a TV programme, easily to access interactive services such as social media, retail and even Google for those idle questions that TV sometimes raises.

Nonetheless the domestic TV is likely to continue to fight back as more people buy Samsung smart TVs (which are computers) and other people buy into services like YouView.

Perhaps then the tab and the laptop will be largely confined to the role of second (interactive) screen – text entry from 10 feet is not particularly easy so a device that enables you to search and navigate without having to wave a remote control about will be attractive for many.

However, I’ll still continue to watch TV in the kitchen in order to escape my dear wife’s obsession with reality TV shows!

So as the recent proud owner of a Samsung Galaxy Tab, I thought I’d give some thought to the extent to which the two devices are similar.

Well there is one big difference for a start. I bought my Galaxy because I needed a new phone, my old one having been liberated from my car by some scally in Putney. And the Galaxy does function as a phone, albeit with an element of Dom Joly about it! However, a Bluetooth headset solve that reasonably well. Of course you can use the iPad as a phone – but only using VoiP such as Skype: and of course that limits who you can call.

Another big difference is the size and weight. iPads are surprisingly heavy, even the iPad 2 weighs in at 600g, around a third more than the Galaxy Tab. That makes it less comfortable to hold for a long time: important if you are using it to read eBooks or magazines.

The big difference is the size though. iPads, with their 10 inch display are much larger than the Galaxy with only 7 inches. That’s a good thing and a bad thing. OK, the iPad’s screen is great for reading magazines and typing. But the downside is that it is bulky. It certainly doesn’t fit into any of my pockets while the Galaxy Tab slips into a coat pocket very nicely. For me at least, the 7 inch screen is plenty big enough for most things I want to do, and a lot better than a smart phone.

There are plenty of other differences too. With the Tab I can buy extra memory if I need to – a 16 GB memory card is a lot cheaper than upgrading from a 16 GB to a 32 GB iPad. The cameras on the Tab were an important point of difference too – but the new iPad 2 has caught up with that feature.

So is the Tab a rip off of an iPad? Decidedly not. It’s a completely different beast. While it has pros and cons compared with the iPad in terms of the technology behind it, the reasons for buying it will be very different for many people.

The Tab is something to take out with you – a genuinely portable web enabled computer which doubles as a phone.

In contrast the iPad is something to keep at home (or perhaps in your briefcase) – which is perhaps why the majority of iPads sold are not 3G enabled. Bigger screen, admittedly. But far less useful, at least for me.

OK, it’s not quite as bad as that. Freeserve had around 1 million users, which meant that each one was valued at about $2000.

In contrast Facebook has well over 500 million Unique Visitors (according to Google), valuing each one at around $100.

At least Facebook has valid business model in terms of its advertising, even if it doesn’t yet necessarily justify such a robust valuation. According to the Guardian, Facebook is predicted by eMarketer to be heading for $2 billion ad revenues in 2011, making around $4 in ad revenues per user.

Given that it is hard to square $4 with $100, Goldman Sachs presumably feels that there is other value contained within the site. There might well be.

It is possible that the advertising could generate more value. At present the industry undervalues Facebook advertising because (in part at least) click through rates aren’t great. People are generally highly engaged when visiting Facebook and so less likely to escape to advertising.

Engagement doesn’t mean they don’t see the advertising, however. And highly engaged visitors may well be more highly swayed by advertising when they see it than they would be if they were less engaged. Certainly there is evidence to that effect from the world of TV.

And the data they collect means that Facebook can deliver some great ad targeting – by age and gender as well as by keyword association.

So if Facebook were successful in selling their site as a premium branding site rather than a commoditised cpc site, then they might generate a far higher yield from the advertising inventory.

It is hard to see where else they could generate revenue, though. A premium subscription service would surely be a very niche product.

And the data they collect may well be less robust, and less valuable, that they like to think (don’t tell me you have registered your real birthday with them, or that all your Facebook friends are people you engage with socially).

There are of course opportunities to make money out of e-commerce, but beyond that it’s hard to see where real opportunities lie.

So the $100 valuation per user does seem optimistic.

And of course it does assume that Facebook is going to be a leader in the social media space for a good while: remember MySpace, remember GeoCities…

But the real issue, it seems to me, is not “How can we make it simple for people to do things on smart TV?” but “How can we understand what they want to do in the first place?”

The trouble is that smart TV isn’t the web.

When mobile phones that could be used to browse the web were first developed, it was a relatively easy thing to create applications that delivered web functionality within the smaller and simpler environment of a mobile phone screen.
So mobile applications such as the Economist’s iPhone and iPad apps, that Amberlight helped to design, are often little more than repurposed  versions of web based content. OK, so there are important design disciplines to apply when repurposing the content, but the mindset of the mobile user is in many ways pretty similar to the “search and click” mindset of the PC user.

It is not the same for Smart TV.

A text-based magazine app on a Smart TV would be destined to fail. It’s not just because lots of text is uncomfortable to read from 10 feet away (unless the font is the size of the font of a cross track poster). It’s not just because people looking at a TV are normally expecting video.

It’s because people watching TV are not in “lean-forward” mode. That means they are not generally expecting to, or prepared to, interact much more than clicking a remote to change channels, pause a film or mute the sound.

The sorts of interaction you find on the web or on mobile devices are simply too complex for most TV viewing situations.

So what sort of apps can we expect?

Not banking probably or paying your bills. Shopping – yes. But not catalogue shopping  – more like clicking through on that lovely necklace you have seen on QVC rather than picking up the phone. Or making a bet when you are watching the National. Simple e-commerce applications.

And of course there will be apps that closely relate to TV watching behaviour: curating content; personalising viewing; and identifying new content via recommendation engines.

But what else? This is where things start getting interesting.

The TV viewing environment is often social – shared in a way that mobiles and TV are not. That means that many apps will benefit from some form of social dimension.

The content is often highly engaging (such that you don’t necessarily want to exit from a liner program, even temporarily; it is frequently real time. Events, news, but also soaps and reality TV – all of these can be “appointments to view” where the viewer doesn’t want the pleasure delayed. So the app needs to be even more engaging – or to provide the desired experience outside the linear stream.

And the viewer may well be in couch potato mode – changing channels is enough of an effort for many; so the app will have to be very simple and highly intuitive.

And finally the app will have to have some relevance to the linear programme – to enable the viewer to gain greater enjoyment of the editorial through using the app. And that is where the main creative challenge still resides.

A few weeks ago I discovered that the letter ”C” seemed to have a strange significance for DAB. And now I find the same for paid content!

Talking to a friend who has the unenviable task of doubling (non-subscription) content revenues for a large media owner, we got to thinking about how media owners would be able to charge for content in the future.

Paid content – the holy grail of online media owners!

And for run of the mill (i.e. non-specialist) media owners like consumer magazines and newspapers, it’s an elusive goal.

Just look at The Times. Last month Beehive City reported that The Times received fewer than 1.5 million uniques in August. 

And while this is a good deal better than some people predicted, initial paid subscription rates were reported to be low, despite a 30 day trial for only £1.

So what are the key issues for media owners to address when delivering their paid for content services?

That’s where the letter “C” comes in!

Collation – collecting content that is right for the target, which is I suppose pretty self evident.

Curation – organising, maintaining and controlling the quality of content; a harder one, this. The task of maintaining (including keeping content up to date) is potentially a big task, while organising content needs more than a good search algorithm, especially if media owners want to increase satisfaction through the serendiptous discovery of content people are not searching for.
 
Contextualisation – giving relevance to content and making sense of it is also important. A story like Rooney’s reported spat with Man U could make for much more entertaining reading if some of the surrounding issues concerning the long term success and viability of the club are made available.

Culling – it’s important to get rid of apparently related but in fact irrelevant content that gets in the way of a good story.

Customisation – making it right for the individual reading the story. NOthing new about that as a concept of course.

Connection – enabling the user to interact with the content in imaginative ways that go beyond opinion surveys: a key differentiator and a way of engaging them and developing their loyalty.

Collaboration – enabling users to contribute to and comment on stories won’t be the future of media, but it is (and has been for a long time) an important part of most media experiences. After all The Times letters page is one of the more popular parts of the newspaper.

Communication – enabling the user to share with others, in a way that people increasingly expect based on their use of social media sites.

Convergence – ensuring the journey works across different devices; and that doesn’t mean delivering the same content in a way that is merely usable on different devices; it means delivering an experience that is appropriate for different devices – perhaps with more location based information added to mobile delivery and more interactive content added to content for PC basd delivery.

Credibility – ensuring the source is trusted, and the brand isn’t damaged by the loosening of editorial control that some of the Cs may imply.

That’s a lot of Cs! It won’t be easy…

The Action Plan outlines a powerful programme of change, focussing on a wide range of areas. There are five work streams:

1. A regulatory work stream that aims to deliver a clear regulatory framework for the public sector, businesses and the voluntary sector to operate in.

2. A consumer technology work stream that will address the problems of affordability and availability of assistive technologies as well as investigate sills and training

3. A website services work stream that will look at ways of ensuring that websites (private and public sectors) are more accessible and better designed

4. An accessible content work stream that will look at issues relating to audio visual content in non web based media as well as ways of making publishing material accessible to the disabled

5. An awareness and promotion work stream that aims to raise awareness of digital accessibility principles

The action plan is very practical: lots of real outputs, not just meetings. If it can be achieved, this programme of work should have a big impact on society and on business.

And accessibility is good business! Nearly one in 5 of the population have some form of disability – and 83% of those have switched from one service to another due to problems with accessibility.

Perhaps even more significantly, around 50% of us have some form of minor physical limitation – poor eyesight, dyslexia, a problem with fine manipulation – and would benefit if websites adhered to the principles of accessibility.

And the opportunities are only going to grow. With an aging population and with more and more people going online regularly, the development of usable and accessible website will be key for any organisation.

And that is why I encourage all my clients to consider accessibility seriously when they are developing new sites and services.

Unfortunately achieving accessibility is getting ever more complex with mobiles, tablets and TVs delivering the web as well as the more familiar PC.

That’s a challenge – the principles of usability for mobiles and smart TVs have yet to be widely agreed. Until they are accessibility is bound to lag on these devices.

But there is no excuse for ignoring accessibility for PC based websites. As a general principal accessible design is good design. But when you realise that accessible design will be positively beneficial for the 50% of the population who have major or minor disabilities it soon becomes clear that getting accessibility right can have a very big impact on the bottom line!