Interviews

Twelve Questions with Dr. David Geerts

“We do not limit ourselves to just asking users what they expect. We also try to observe their actual social behavior, online as well as in reality.” – David Geerts

Q. David, thank you for setting aside some time to chat with SoCin. Looking back over the last decade of your work as a pioneer in the Social TV space, what first interested you in the emerging field of Social TV?

A. When I started collaborating with a Belgian cable provider by evaluating their Interactive Television services, I noticed that most of these services were tailored for single users. Having a master in communication sciences, I realized that this was contradictory to the social character of television that many television researchers have written about. When I saw a demo of AmigoTV, a Social TV concept by the people from Alcatel-Lucent, I got convinced that this would be much more in line with real TV practices. As social networking was emerging around the same time, the conviction that this could become the future of television became even stronger. I started my PhD on that topic, and gradually met more and more people that were working on Social TV prototypes. It is great to see that it is now hitting consumer markets as well!

Q. Your book “Social Interactive Television,” with fellow co-authors Pablo Cesar (CWI) and Konstantinos Chorianopolous (Ionian University), is groundbreaking and objectively includes an array of global researchers’ broad and narrow definitions for Social TV. What does Social TV mean to you?

A. To me, Social TV includes those technologies or applications that allow people to socialize while watching TV, in the same room (co-located) as well as across different locations (remote), and at the same time (synchronous) as well as at different times (asynchronous). This is of course a very broad definition as well, as I think that Social TV is not one single concept, but can include a range of features. Examples include seeing who’s watching what, chatting (either through voice or text), recommending content, sharing content, playing along a quiz-show, re-mixing content through co-creation, etc. But as the Social TV field is still very young, I see a lot of potential for new features which are not
available yet, as long as they are focused at social interaction.

Crucial to me when talking about Social TV is that the TV content is a central element, along which the social interaction takes place. So using your television set to have a video conference with someone as your main activity (while not watching TV) does not classify as Social Television to me. On the other hand, using your PC to watch YouTube videos while chatting with your friends (who are watching the same videos), is indeed Social TV.

Personally, I believe more in Social TV which includes your friends and family, rather than getting social with strangers. But both approaches are of course possible, and could offer different perspectives on the concept of Social TV.

Q. Some skeptics have remarked that watching TV has historically been a laid-back viewing experience and that TV habits are becoming increasingly more personal, not social. What are the major reasons that support that TV is largely headed toward a Social Interactive TV experience?

A. I agree that television is largely a laid-back activity, but this doesn’t mean that people do not want to interact with each other. I do think that this means that Social Television applications need to be carefully designed, and that interactivity needs to be very easy and low-effort.  There are plenty of ways to do this, from sending small emoticons with one touch of a button, to using new gesture-based interaction techniques. A good human-centered design approach will lead to applications that take user’s needs and the context of use into account.

I do contest that TV habits are becoming increasingly personal. While there will always be times when you want to watch TV on your own, or there is just no one around to share the couch, even then you would want to share your experiences with other people at a later time, e.g. at the water cooler at work. You could argue that multiple TV sets, time-shifting, watching videos on PC or the sheer amount of available channels all are in contrast with a Social TV experience. But saying that this is what people want is like saying that people do not want any privacy anymore because of what’s happening on Facebook. If the technology does not allow us to control our privacy in a good way, or to socialize while watching TV, it’s the technology that needs to change, not the people. Humans are sociable creatures, and social interaction is one of our basic needs, so it is only logical that this also applies to our media
habits.

However laid-back watching TV is, people are very active in a social way while watching, or they share their experiences afterward (or even in advance). Trying to use technology to increase social interaction around video content is a perfectly natural evolution. I believe that personalization does have a place, but not just on an individual level. Group personalization (e.g. for your group of friends, or for your family) will be important as well.

Q. Your development of overarching sociability heuristic guidelines (summarized below) for designing and evaluating Social TV demonstrates how much Social TV will offer. How delicate is it to properly implement these elements in this new, converged medium and which factors do you find to be especially important?

A. As with all new technologies or applications, making sure it is adapted to real (social) behavior is very important to make sure people can really use it. I have created these heuristics in order to make it easier in the early stages of development to already consider which aspects to take into account when designing social television applications, or to evaluate early prototypes. The heuristics alone are not sufficient however, they should be complemented with more direct user research.

I have seen many examples of Social TV applications that violate one or more of these aspects, and often you read user reactions or reviews that exactly comment on these things. So I do believe that taking them into account is essential for creating applications that support the users’ social activities.

It’s hard to single out the most important factors, but if I had to choose, I would say privacy issues (both personal and group privacy), taking into account the right program genres, and offering different channels for communicating. Privacy, because people need to be aware what they are sharing or not. If you are not transparent enough about this, people will not trust your service. Genres, because this can really determine the success of your system. If you want to stimulate chatting, but you only offer drama series, this doesn’t match. Finally, different communication channels, because people need flexibility when communicating. Sometimes you just want to send a small thumbs-up, like we would smile at the person sitting next to us, at other times you want to talk more actively. Limiting communication options will frustrate users on the long run.

Q. Some of your work intuitively highlights how specific program genres, age differences and gender will factor in use and enjoyment of Social TV.  Can you elaborate upon this for our readers?

A. As I said earlier, program genres can have a large impact on how people want to interact with each other. Some genres are more suitable for chatting synchronously (e.g. soap operas or reality TV), while others are more suitable for sharing short clips (e.g. breaking news). Having insight in which genres are most suitable for which kind of social interaction, can help in creating very specific kind of Social TV applications, e.g. a sports fans application or a quiz show to play along with.

Age or gender differences are a bit more difficult to understand, as it is never a black-and-white story. It’s better to think in lines of e.g. experience with interactive technologies, as this has a more profound impact on people’s skills or expectations than age or gender. It is clear however that men and women often prefer different TV genres, so the audience for a particular application will probably follow these preferences as well.

Q. Many companies and researchers are conceptualizing ways to include the use of mobile phones or peripheral devices as either remote controls or additional in-home viewing and activity screens. How predominant will mobile phones or peripheral devices be for in-home Social TV?

A. Even though it might sound contradictory, mobile phones or other peripheral devices can support the social character of interactive television. To give one example, if you want to browse the EPG while the program is still running, you don’t disturb other people by obscuring the TV screen, but you can do this on your mobile phone. It is not a solitary activity either, as it is very easy to pass the phone around, and if that application has some social features on it, it might even help in planning your TV evening. Other uses of mobile phones in Social TV could be for example to automatically log on to the system when you carry your mobile phone with you. This could solve the problem that when watching in group, only one person is logged in, which could cause confusion for people who want a private chat with you. So these extra devices could definitely enhance the Social TV viewing experience.

Q. With Social Media quickly evolving to embrace Mobile, Geolocation and Location Based Services, how vibrant do you think the Mobile Social TV or Geolocative TV space will be in the next three years?

A. Mobile TV is only just starting to become available, and although some researchers are already working in this area, I think there is a lot of research and experiments that needs to be done in order to fully understand the possibilities of Mobile Social TV. At the same time, geolocated services are emerging everywhere, so I think it is very interesting to see what the combination with social TV could bring. So yes, I think there will be quite some opportunities for combining the two, but the next three years will be mainly experimenting and finding out how Mobile Social TV as well as geolocated TV should be materialized.

Q. We’re just starting to see Social TV as a paradigm shift from Broadcast TV. I believe that “made-for Social’ TV, movies, and video will take a sizeable market share over traditional broadcast programming and traditionally-developed media integrated with social aspects. What are your thoughts about the near and long-term future of each model?

A. I think both models can live nicely together. First of all, I think that one or more good Social TV systems which have basic social functionality need to be available. People could then watch traditional TV programming or media, while using the social features of the encompassing service. When people are getting more used to this new (or rather ‘refurnished’) way of watching television, there will be room for applications tailored for specific genres, or even social formats where the social activity is an inherent part of the TV program.

Q. What benefits and problems do you foresee new Social TV advertising models having for networks, brands and users?

A. We see that social networking and other social media are slowly being embraced by some advertisers, and they try to harness the power of social influencers to get their brand to a broad range of users. Given the power of television as an advertising medium, and the TV spot as still one of the most captivating advertising tools, the combination of Social TV and advertising could be really powerful. The knowledge that advertisers are now gaining with social media could be very helpful to understand how it could work on Social TV as well.

Q. How do you think new TV ratings will incorporate social engagement and metrics?

A. It would be interesting to see which programs stimulate the most social activity, and which don’t, information which you can directly get access to when Social TV is in wide use. This might give us different insights in user behavior than just the amount of people that are watching a specific program. This could both inspire program makers to create more Social TV formats, as well as inform advertisers on which programs generate the most buzz, and are thus perfectly suited for advertising their brands.

Q. What do you think a next evolutionary step might be for TV and movies, beyond becoming more connected and social?

A. There is currently a big interest in 3D television, although I think this interest is mostly driven by the content providers (for countering privacy) and technology companies which want to sell us new devices. I am not sure if people are really waiting for 3D TV, but it’s hard to predict how it will take off.

I believe that what might be a more evolutionary step from a user’s perspective, is co-creation of Social TV content. This combines two of the most successful recent evolutions on the internet: user generated content and social media. Last year we completed a European project, called CITIZEN MEDIA, where over a period of three years, we explored with several companies and research institutes how you can support both social and creative activities in combination with video and television. We designed a prototype of a quiz show which people could create on their PC, and which was then broadcast on the local television cable in a small Austrian village. People from different households could then play along and compete against each other. Reactions were very positive, and show that these kinds of applications offer a lot of potential!

Q. Lastly, what personal interest or hobby of yours do you most look forward to enjoying with Social TV?

A. One of the most popular programs at the moment in Belgium is a show where four people invite each other in turns for dinner. It’s a bit of reality TV mixed with cooking and sharing recipes. As I like to cook myself, and sharing recipes is a very social activity as well, I see a lot of potential for changing this into a Social TV format.

Sociability Heuristics for Social TV (Summary)

1. Offer different channels and levels for communicating freely (communication modalities).
2. Use awareness tools for communicating availability (presence and awareness).
3. Allow both synchronous and asynchronous use (synchronous and asynchronous use).
4. Support remote as well as collocated interaction (remote versus collocated interaction).
5. Exploit viewing behavior for informing and engaging other viewers (information about viewing behavior).
6. Give the user appropriate control over actions and systems settings (user control).
7. Guarantee both personal and group privacy (personal and group privacy).
8. Minimize Distraction from the television program (distraction).
9. Notify the user of incoming events and situation changes. (notification about activities).
10. Adapt to appropriate television program genres (program genres).
11. Let the users share content flexibly (sharing content).
12. Encourage shared activities (sharing activities).

Bio: Dr. David Geerts earned a double masters in Communication Science and Culture and Communication (K.U. Leuven, K.U. Brussel) and a PhD in Social Sciences (K.U. Leuven). He now leads as faculty at the Centre for User Experience Research (CUO) at K.U. Leuven and IBBT. David served as program chairman of the EuroITV 2009 Conference, wherein he presented a tutorial on Designing and Evaluating the Sociability of Interactive Television. David contributes to the Social TV in many capacities; including serving as chairman of SIGCHI.be; acting on the editorial board of UITV.INFO; as a member of the ICIP TC14; ACM and UPA; and working on research projects such as VRT CREACOM, VIP LAB, SEMIT, ISBO VIN, GR@SP, Vlaanderen Interactief, Citizen Media, and Theraplay. His numerous publications over the past decade include co-authoring the groundbreaking “Social Interactive Television: Immersive Shared Experiences and Perspectives (ICI Global 2009);” “Sociability Heuristics for Evaluating Social Interactive Television Systems;” and “The Implications of Program Genres for the Design of Social Television Systems.” David is a proud father of two children, Lenka (6) and Kasper (4). Apart from spending time with his children, he enjoys cooking, dancing, playing piano, reading fiction, watching TV and going to the movies – although not all at the same time.