A research project’s resume. Conducted in Moscow and Moscow region. You can see more information on novostimedialab.com.

1. the penetration of smart-tv and
the prognosis for the transmission
of media consumption
a research project’s resume.

2. contents
this presentation comprises the main conclusions of the
research projects
main research conclusions. Ivan Klimov
establishment survey. A presentation by I. Poluekhtova, ACVI
online-discussion with users. A presentation by N. Khazeeva, NewMR
thematic analysis of blogs regarding smart-tv. A presentation by I. Klimov, MediaLab;
A. Venevitin NRU HSE
thematic analysis of blogs – technocenosis. A presentation by I. Klimov, MediaLab
anthropology: users. A presentation by M. Burlutskaya, UrSPU, I. Klimov, MediaLab
anthropology: smart-tv consultants and tv-set sellers. A presentation by M.
Burlutskaya, UrSPU, I. Klimov, MediaLab
anthropology: a RIA Novosti interactive video. A presentation by O. Dmitriyeva,
NRU HSE, I. Klimov, MediaLab – in process

3. !
!
main research conclusions
!
Ivan Klimov.

4. why smart-tv?
the development of the Internet infrastructure triggers massive
emergence of new multimedia capabilities. This brings up a
question: how will these innovations win the social sphere?
Smart-tv is one of the technologies which is now actively undergoing the phase
of socialization, which means penetration into different strata and social groups.
There are already some trends registered regarding it, but there has been yet
no systematic research. The main paradox: only one half of all smart tv-sets
have Internet access according to a data collection (manufacturers’ statistics,
evaluative research information)

5. why smart-tv?
we are interested in a wider range of issues:
!
!
assessment of the penetration depth of smart-tv
description of the process of installing and mastering the functional of smart-tv
cartography of barriers to use and systemization of users’ requests
study of changes in media consumption and strategies of mastering smart -tv
portraying the user, segmentation of this target audience
forecast for the development of smart-tv and other similar technological
solutions
!
!
!

6. the profile of our research
research members
!
analytical Center Video International (manager I. Poluekhtova)
RIA Novosti MediaLab (manager I. Klimov)
NRU HSE media communications department students (manager O. Dmitriyeva)
NRU HSE sociology department students (manager I. Klimov)
!
!
time frame
!
november, 2012 – may, 2013
!

7. the profile of our research
project structure (data source):
!
during the stated period the research group realized 7 sub-projects, autonomous
studies
!
establishment survey on omi panel:
Moscow and Moscow Region, 6000 people (ex. OMI)
online-forum with users:
26 people (ex. NewMR)
online-chat with smart tv-set users’ who don’t have Internet access:
10 people (ex. NewMR)
thematic analysis of blogosphere
(MediaLab)
anthropology: smart-tv users:
23 personal interviews (MediaLab)
anthropology: tv consultants and sellers:
21 personal interviews (MediaLab)
anthropology: interactive video of ria-tv:
21 personal interviews (MediaLab)

8. comprehension of the results
!
the ecosystem of mobile gadgets has easily conquered users. However, it didn't
generate comprehension of why it happened and how this innovation socialized. This, in
its turn, urged manufacturers to the strategy of “user success" replication in the field of
television watching. There is yet no realization that users perceive mobile gadgets and a
tv-set in different ways. Those media vary in the degree of intimacy; presume diverse
socialization practices and different strategies of individual mastering. Smart-tv needs to
find authentic, "native" solutions
!
there haven’t been created any marketing communications which could provide a
Moscow Region user with comprehensive examples of user practices, user cases to
model some variants of user behavior with respect to the capabilities and interface of
smart-tv. Apparently, it’s needed to form an independent “user model” regarding smarttv technologies, interactive and hyper video (this model would, for instance, consider a
family as a final complex user)

9. comprehension of the results
!
current interfaces are unsatisfactory to the outmost degree. An attempt to transfer the
ecosystem of mobile gadgets into smart-tv isn’t an adequate solution. People do not
consider objects inside a tv-screen as virtual things with the same status as in mobile
phones. There arises a question not only about the modification of the current services,
about the accessibility of “nearest future” services, but also about the understanding of
how original interaction of the user, smart interface and content can be built
!
the breaking of linear tv viewing, emergence of interactive and hyper video require from
a viewer (user) cognitive work of a completely different type. The following must
constitute an essential part of those cognitive practices:
foreseeing the content by the followed link or tag
active participation in the choice, search of content, realization of aims at search of new user
abilities
reflection on current consumption tactics and practices of video and related content
reflexive planning of an upcoming view and interaction with some partners on this issue
different understanding of –self as an object (subject) of receiving some content, information
!
!
!
!

10. establishment survey
!
a presentation by I. Poluekhtova, ACVI.

11. the establishment survey
we found out that approximately one half of all purchased smart tv-sets
aren’t connected to the Internet. Barriers:
!
unfriendly interface
content deficit, inconvenient navigation
Internet quality
user habits
!
purchasing smart-tv hardly changes traditional (linear) tv viewing of
connected users, at least coexists with it
!
however, data indicates that after purchasing smart-tv users watch video on
their computers/laptops less and more on smart screens. But… this is
mostly downloaded/recorded content, not online (via applications)

12. the research information
shows that 18% of respondents have smart-tv (representative for Moscow and
Moscow Region). Two thirds of the respondents plan buying a tv-set in the
nearest future (64%) and 55% consider smart-tv functions in a new tv-set
important

13. on-line discussion with users
!
!
a presentation by N. Khazeeva, NewMR.

14. on-line discussion with smart-tv users
based on the on-line discussion results, it is possible to
determine five segments of smart-tv users:
!
active tv consumers
filmniks
communicators
pleasure seekers
technology connoisseurs
!
the majority master connection on their own, and very few engage specialists.
Primarily, the majority plug in tv and start learning its functions; its intergation
into into the home Internet network is often delayed

15. on-line discussion with smart-tv users
active tv consumers
the most active tv consumers who take tv as a part of their life. They watch terrestrial tv for a
background (emotional release, acquisition of useful data) and on purpose. Background tv viewing
(in search of something interesting) is replaced by intended smart-tv viewing. They value a more
high-quality tv viewing. Barriers: incapability of camera tv viewing, a scanty repertoire
filmniks
consume movies on tv, online and download them. They value “the picture”. Background tv-viewing
is rare. They watch movies on smart-tv more than on computers. They value the ability to find/
record a high-quality film quickly. Barriers: not enough new films in smart applications
communicators
active consumers of information and media, not tv itself but all practices accompanying social media
activity. They value content for further communication, not the picture itself. They started to view
photos, video and films via smart as a counter to other media. They value synchronization with
different devices. Barriers: lack of so cherished mobility

16. on-line discussion with smart-tv users
pleasure seekers
active tv consumption for entertainment. They watch tv mainly via smart mastering the functions of
the new toy. They value the emergence of big amusement capabilities. Barriers: “the toy” is too
expensive
technology connoisseurs
hardly ever watch tv. They consume video and computer products. Tv viewing time frame expands
due to mastering smart. They value the chance to affirm their status of device experts. No barriers

17. thematic analysis of blogs
regarding smart-tv
!
a presentation by I. Klimov, MediaLab; A. Venevitin NRU HSE.

18. thematic analysis of blogs with regard to
smart-tv
problems of mastering smart-tv are actively discussed in blogs. The key barrier to
mastering the technology is the disabling the user of his/her own construction of the
information field (the main declared advantage of smart-tv)
!
a doubtless luck should be mentioned: new users disregarding their competence and
skills don’t need to spend much time mastering the internal architecture of software
!
it is assumed that the smart-tv technology provides a full-fledged access to multimedia
Internet resources bypassing PC. But now with the respect to the software quality
personal computers and mobile gadgets outpace smart-tv. Under the conditions of a
complex multilevel navigation all smart-tv advantages lose their power. The most urgent
task of the technology is to provide access to content “in a couple of mouse clicks” as
an obligatory standard of the technology

19. thematic analysis of blogs with regard to
smart-tv
reproaches for insufficient processing speed can be determined by the weak hardware
(the processor, RAM etc.) which cannot fit the supplied software. Another reason is
hitches in the software itself. Its manufacturers are responsible for these drawbacks.
Also, a low quality of Internet access is a reason. It depends on users. Excessive
response time triggers rejection of the smart-tv technology in favor of media
consumption via a PC or traditional tv

20. thematic analysis of blogs –
technocenosis
!
a presentation by I. Klimov, MediaLab.

21. technocenosis
a series of studies and a thematic analysis of blogs helped
formulate the idea of “gadget technocenosis”
technocenosis
is the aggregate of gadgets at personal disposal which are united by a “license” system
– that is, unfilled capacities in the room of imaginary needs. A gadget usually operates
amid many others and must be respectively adjusted
it’s possible to determine three technocenosis types:
tough competition technocenosis
a smartphone, a laptop, a tablet computer, a navigator, a stationary computer, a smart tv-set
facultative technocenosis
an audio player, a flash disk, a cell phone, an alarm clock, a torch, a shade, a graphics tablet, a
video game console, an Internet Access Point, a photo camera
autonomous technocenosis
a dishwashing machine, a coffee machine, a stove/a cooking top, a bread machine, an oven, a
washing machine, a refrigerator, a tv-set

22. technocenosis
the creation of smart shifted the status of a tv-set from “autonomous” to
“tough competition”. And here the viewer faces “competence flaws” as his/her
experience in using a computer and mobile phones doesn’t help master
smart-tv. On the contrary, it becomes a hurdle due to the most disappointing
results of comparison

23. anthropology: users
!
a presentation by M. Burlutskaya, UrSPU, I. Klimov, MediaLab.

24. anthropology: users
smart-tv exists as a complex product embracing the features of a commodity,
a service, an innovative item (client instruction for full-fledged use is required).
However, the apprehension of smart-tv is at the level of “basic functional”, a
commodity “functional” (diagonal, 3D, HD, sound) but not a “service” of
building one’s own media consumption. That means smart users hardly buy it
for smart-functional

25. anthropology: users
the first obvious assertion is that smart changes nothing in life
turns out false on closer scrutiny. There are some changes (but
only in case smart functions are mastered!):
young people go to the cinema less often. That means, their rest becomes
more “domestic”
noted by several informants: tv-viewing starts gathering the whole family. Due
to the fact that the ability to consciously select tv-programs grows and those
programs are not tied to the tv-viewing grid, family tv-entertainment comes
back
some consumers note that they have started watching tv more. This effect is
connected with the fact that background tv-viewing is reduced and people
select interesting and worthy programs

26. anthropology: smart-tv
consultants and tv-set sellers
!
a presentation by M. Burlutskaya, UrSPU, I. Klimov, MediaLab.

27. anthropology: consultants and sellers
the research touched upon 5 types of tv consultants and sellers:
!
retail chain electronics stores
specialized stores (medium-sized, in shopping malls)
factory stores
sales outlets at markets
“meyvins” – familiar consultants and advisors
!
smart-tv market goes mass. Smart is chosen more often than in a half of all
sales, the borders of the “core” segment are blurred, and purchases are made
not only by “innovators” but also by “followers” and the “majority”
!
most tv and smart-tv sellers aren’t able to demonstrate smart features in the
store. The exclusion is factory stores and in single instances chain stores

28. anthropology: consultants and sellers
sellers aren’t ordered to promote and advertise for smart-tv. On the one
hand, such a directive isn’t given by the board and manufacturers; on the
other hand, it is reluctance to advertise for an arguable (regarding the
interface) technology
!
the assessment of the prospects of smart technologies sounds optimistic.
However, opinions about the dominating technology vary. De facto, a
replacement strategy is carried out. That means, smart features are installed
in tv-sets on default and buyers often don’t know about them at all

29. anthropology: a RIA Novosti
interactive video
!
a presentation by O. Dmitriyeva, NRU HSE, I. Klimov, MediaLab – in
process.

30. the smart-tv topic is logically accompanied by a task to find
out how users master the “interactive video” project. Recent
studies have shown that mastering non-linear video content
isn’t a simple task for a viewer. A more detailed report is
being prepared at the moment
!

31. some results
apparently, interactive video is still a “niche” product. That is, its potential
consumers are segmented according to comparatively shallow, specific
interests and characteristics. The source of this concernment mainly
embraces professional activities (education, museology, excursions) or
hobbies (sports, travelling, collecting, technography etc.)

32. some results
readiness to master interactive video is defined by following
parameters:
what device and what type of video a user prefers
orientation on discovery/recovery referring to the use of Internet content.
This competence characteristic is tangibly correlated with age, but doesn’t
completely depend on it
presence/lack of experience in producing or using interactive materials
(interactive school boards, using programs for presentations, using
multimedia systems)
accidental content surfing/understanding and foreseeing the content in the
interactive field. The respondents attached great importance to understand
(foresee) the value and necessity of the information found in the interactive
field

33. some results
respondents emphasized some difficulties, failures and misunderstanding of
handling interactive video. But the majority recognized principal utility of such
content. However, as they mentioned, interactive video would be helpful for
them in some situations (practicing yoga, education, travel and vocation
arrangements, town sightseeing) but not as an ample archive to fit every
taste and interest