The mantra of content owners and broadcasters worldwide is that they offer a unique combination of content, brand and experience which cannot be picked apart.  In the linear broadcast-only days this made a lot of sense.  In the UK we tuned in to BBC1 where we knew we would see quality programming and soon grew to love our favourite programmes presented in a schedule designed to maximise viewing numbers at peak times.  We would tune in to Channel 4 for a more edgy, contemporary style or ITV for more populist, inclusive programming.  For the commercial channels, the ads and sponsorship messages were inserted into that linear feed by day part and viewing numbers were simply converted into a cost per thousand metric.

Then along came video-on-demand.  Suddenly individual programming was sold without the channel brand and presentational experience attached.  This was just about OK for movies which were traditional presented standalone but for TV the stresses started to show.

Then along came catch-up.  Now the fun really started.  This looks and feels like linear programming but delayed.  Surely then the old model of content, brand and experience all in one should hold?  This was challenging when licensing to IPTV operators who offered a VoD option, as the content had to sit in their user interface and be consistently presented with all the other content available.  But tensions were there and many broadcasters asked for their own branded areas within that interface where they could exert their own control.  This was the game consistently being played when I created BT Vision.

Then along came video-over-broadband.  Suddenly the broadcasters saw an opportunity to get back in control.  Spurred on by the innovators like Joost and Bablegum, the broadcasters created their own internet video player which allowed then to by-pass their traditional content customers and exert that longed-for control.  Thus the likes of iPlayer, Hulu and TV.com were born.  Raging successes all of them, the broadcasters gave a long sigh of relief and all was well with the world once more.

But it is not, is it?!  The planets are still not aligned.  In the TV world, that catch-up content does need to be presented alongside other content in a consistent, user friendly, reliable, relevant fashion and that means integration.  It does not mean displaying 5 independently controlled interfaces through one service.  Someone must be the trusted, independent aggregator of all the content someone wants to consume and no single broadcaster can be trusted to deliver that (think Kangaroo).  Maybe the ideal choice is the service operator who is content agnostic and ARPU driven. So then we would come back full circle to ‘traditional’ model of licensing the content without the brand and experience and allowing that operator to do what is right for the customer.

Sezmi – the TV2.0 operator (www.sezmi.com) – uses the mall analogy in an attempt to overcome this dilemma.  Macys at the end of the mall has a collection of goods from all brands but coexisting in the mall are a number of specialist shops selling some of the same items but designed to appeal to the brand-led shopper.  Similarly on Sezmi, we see a Sezmi designed interface that uses personalisation to present from the complete pool of content a ‘best bet’ view of what their customers might want.  Alongside this are a number of branded content ‘channels’ where a broadcaster’s programming is pulled together under one umbrella.  It will be interesting over time to see which entry method the consumer prefers.  My bet is on the personalised Macys and the recent research from Accenture Broadcast Consumer Survey 2009 who surveyed 14,000 consumers across the world to determine television viewing habits. Among key findings, the survey found that consumers remain very loyal to the programs they enjoy watching. ‘Nearly three-quarters (73%) of respondents said they watch some programs on more than one channel — indicating that consumers follow their favourite programs from channel to channel and have little loyalty to the branded content channel to which the content might be associated.’ I guess this no surprise to us consumers but a hard message for the strong channel brands to swallow.

We are also seeing innovation around creating a personalised linear broadcast feed where a recommendation engine analyses the full suite of channels and creates your own feed by automatically swapping between those live feeds.  The channel brand you might end up trusting the most could be one created through a recommendation service.  Add to this an element of peer rating – aka LastFM – and the entertainment brand we most trust will be created by our friends and family!

Of course programme interactivity and t-commerce – think voting on Xfactor and product placement – piles complexity on complexity.  Who should own that consumer relationship?  The content owner, the broadcaster or the service provider?  Today this is handled outside of the service provider via the phone but today IP-connected TVs allow more sophisticated, more immediate audience response that could either by anonymised or form the foundation of a content owner to end customer relationship.

So how will all this play out?  There is a maelstrom of business models, brands, user interfaces, devices, distribution channels, partnerships, consumer preferences and egos to align.  As a TV consumer, I want the programmes I like, presented through an easy interface on my device of choice, representing good value for money and delivered in an acceptable quality.  I am hoping for all our sakes that compromise will prevail and we put the customer first.

Would love to get your thoughts on what that compromise will ultimately look like and who will win this land grab?