The Character and Meaning of
Devices
By Michael Hulme
Michael
Hulme is the Chairman of Teleconomy Group Plc.
He has written and lectured extensively on issues
relating to consumer behaviours and corporate
communication, and has had a successful commercial
career in senior management and as an entrepreneur. |
Last week I attended a most interesting evening
set of talks on the subject of Digital Radio. Digital
Radio is at a particularly fascinating stage in its
development in terms of functionality, content and
delivery devices. But it was during the ‘after
event’ discussion that a conversation with a
very eminent academic provided the inspiration for
this piece. However before I return to the conversation,
it might be useful to think further about the particular
challenge for Digital Radio.
Traditionally, radio provides much of our ambient
sound. At different times, items, music or a programme
may receive our focussed concentration, but for much
of the time it represents background sound. Our consumption
of this sound varies by a whole range of demographics,
times, locations and contexts. And for most of us
the actual delivery device of radio has become part
of this background.
Many radio devices are relatively inexpensive, and
small or portable devices are increasingly becoming
part of our lives. These feature in many different
spaces and are embedded into a range of other devices
including sound systems, alarm clocks, televisions
and cars. For a few of us, say those interested in
sophisticated sound equipment, radio does remain a
distinct objectified entity, that is made an object
via the device of its delivery, in this case the ‘tuner’.
For most this is not the case.
Now along comes Digital Radio. At this point in time,
its key differentiating characteristics over analogue
radio are those of sound quality and, although this
is only emergent, content and ease of use (possibly
only recognised by those who have accesses to DAB
receivers). Just as in the beginning of analogue radio,
the delivery device moves out of the background and
once again becomes centre stage. At this point we
can return to my original conversation with my academic
friend.
Our conversation was, I think, originally prompted
by thinking of the effect of new listening and viewing
behaviours on advertising revenues. This had taken
us on to discuss the importance of context, time and
location to the likely reception or appropriateness
of any advertising messaging. At this point I suggested
that a key factor, often overlooked, was the nature
or character of the access device. My academic friend
immediately rejected this, feeling that at best it
was a very weak factor. I did not then and cannot
now agree. However, reflecting on his position, I
have come gradually to realise just how little consideration
is given to the character and meaning of access devices.
The digital radio problem is an acute example of this.
The £99 ‘kitchen’ radio represented
a watershed in DAB listening, the first sub one hundred
pound radio. And it also represents a point where
the medium does to a significant extent become represented
by the physical device. Indeed for the next few years
(until a cheap chip able to embed digital radio is
manufactured), the medium will continue to be synonymous
with its form of delivery device.
Thinking of other examples, if we turn to examine
the growth of the Internet we see a medium where advertising
revenues are undoubtedly hampered by its primary delivery
tool, the PC. For most of us the PC still represents
a work tool. It is aesthetically unpleasing and carries
utilitarian associations. And it is still relatively
expensive, so penetration remains broadly static.
However dress this device up as a Playstation or X-Box
and you have a very different relationship to the
device, a totally different set of social constructions.
If we extend this argument to the television, we quickly
understand both the power and the weakness of this
device. For decades the device has been a provider
of pre-programmed, time bound social entertainment.
Whilst it is wrong to emphasise our passive role in
front of its screen (after all there has been no shortage
of emotional or mental interaction!) we are not used
to interacting back, to making choices and expressing
complex decisions as interactive television would
have us do. Not surprisingly it is taking some time
for us to rework the meaning of this device, some
time for us to learn to exercise control. In its initial
form this is through simple interactions such as betting,
voting etc, but more complex interactions will come
and at an increasingly rapid pace. With this will
come a complete social reappraisal of the role, meaning
and significance of the device.
In all these instances the devices of delivery take
on new characteristics and meanings, characteristics,
which in the short to medium term very materially
affect the way in which we understand and receive
messages from advertisers. We must ensure we take
account of the social constructions we place on these
devices, for increasingly each device will deliver
several media and each device will play some role
in our understanding and decoding of the messages
sent via these media.
And in the longer term, perhaps, and only perhaps,
analogue radio points the way. Perhaps a truly ubiquitous
and successful medium is one that is independent of
the delivery device, leading to the same scale of
adoption - and cost profile - as analogue, But expect
the device, as messenger, to still influence the message.
So my eminent academic friend, don’t shoot the
messenger just yet!
|
FEEDBACK