Gemini Division, NBC, and Alternate Reality Gaming and Viral Marketing gone wrong.

Wednesday, August 27th saw the release of the alternate reality game and immersive interaction content for Gemini Division, the new online-only series distributed by NBC Universal Digital Studios. Entertainment bloggers/reporters, fans, and entire ARG communities have been eagerly awaiting this release as this series is the first web only property produced by a Hollywood studio and distributed by a major network. With a production budget of just over $2 million dollars Gemini has received favorable reviews and is a smart, well filmed vehicle featuring an all star cast headed by Rosario Dawson.

In the media preview, series creator and Executive Producer Brent Friedman discussed the ARG portion of Gemini. NBC’s alternate reality immersive experience would be led by the creator of the Heroes ARG. Viewers who participated would join Rosario's character, NYPD Detective Anna Diaz, in becoming Gemini Division agents; sometimes researching for Anna, and sometimes working alongside her on missions. This was exciting news. In another first of its kind, this alternate reality type of game would provide what sounded like the first run of active immersive content in combination with a live, Hollywood created web/mobile series

In the Prime Time for Change post on July 26th we discussed the "corporate viewpoint" to illustrate the challenges facing both traditional broadcasters and program viewers as entertainment media corporations attempt to leverage the internet to increase their market share The concerns about corporate cultural impact were realized this week. With the premiere of Gemini Division on NBC.com viewers are able to sign up to participate in additional content, including text messages. This was to drive the alternate reality game that was to accompany the series.

In the Prime Time For Change articles, Looking Beyond the Box and Through Someone Else’s Eyes, both written in July, two primary points of concern were stated:

1) There is a disconnect between the ‘corporate think’ of primetime networks and the viewers who watch their content.

2) Major corporations don’t understand how to look beyond the immediate need of today and as such limit their ability to provide a viable product.

As entertainment media corporations attempt to leverage the internet to increase their market share, we believe that it is vitally important for major networks to:

1) Engage in active listening.

2) Think beyond today and be committed toward the rollout of a robust product.

Here you can see our concerns as well as our hopes for the progression of new media.

This week we waited in hope that our concerns would be laid to rest and looked forward to the imminent release of the interactive experience. With the premiere of Gemini Division on NBC.com, viewers are able to sign up to participate in additional content, including text messages. This was to drive the alternate reality game that was to accompany the series.

On Wednesday participants received a text message from Gemini character Pete Vacarella, Anna Diaz's partner, titled "Gemini What?". The message follows:

"What up? Listen, I need you to check out my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/petevacarella. Dug up some dirt on Anna's new boyfriend, and I don't think you're gonna like it. She's in Paris with the guy right now, and when our girl gets back, I think we better knock some sense into our girl.

Later, Pete "

This was followed by the legally required unsubscribe disclaimer that is also found on the Heroes ARG emails ...a bit of normal, but vital in our overly litigious society. Based on our fan research, first impressions of the Pete Vacarella profile range from "adequate" to "good". Not over done, the profile contains character information, pictures, and blog posts structured to replicate a real world MySpace page. Some of the photos and posts establish the character background while others tie directly to Gemini Division meeting the basics of the ARG 'this is not a game' [TINAG] tenant.

Readers progressing through the blog posts, oldest to newest, reported that NBC had done an adequate job of building this alternate reality character's persona. The blog on the Character Nick Korda included passport photos and travel itineraries. When readers switched between the blog and photo albums additional information about Korda was provided, as well as a tie from a newspaper article that doesn't appear to have a direct connection to the episodes that aired thus far.

However, the last most recent blog post and the separate awkward release of two branded “viral” videos saw the burgeoning realization of our previously stated concerns. Consequently, these events are causing a considerable amount of controversy among ARG fans.

Pete’s branded/subtitle video blog entry

Fan feedback about this game component ranges from moderate disappointment to irrational fury over the series logo, "episode title", and summary. Part of the joy in alternate reality gaming, especially when it is combined as immersive content, is the TINAG, or This Is Not A Game aspect. ARG fans feel that branding invalidates the game as there is no way that the ARG player can suspend disbelief which is necessary to build an attachment to the alternate universe where character Pete Vacarella lives.

Most reference sources agree that Alternate Reality Games are interactive narratives using the real world as a platform. They nvolve multiple media and game elements with clues embedded in everyday life, the most important concepts behind the ARG are the 'archaeological storytelling' and the 'Non-hoax' or 'This is not a game [TINAG]' atmospheres. Game designers provide only portions of the story, distributed across multiple platforms, allowing players to assemble and supply the connective points and determination of meaning. By the game's lack of acknowledgement that it is a game players experience the foibles of a real-world experience; websites may either be real or game related, phone numbers or email address shown on game websites work, and the game is played real-time. Players are forced to advance through the game using their own analysis, deductive reasoning, and speculative skills.

Opinions vary greatly on the driver for "the game", though most agree that ARGs have become a tool for additional marketing of an entertainment property. An excellent example of this is the recent Dark Knight ARG where players worked through numerous websites leading up to a special six minute opening preview of the movie provided as "live coverage" on the Gotham News Network website. GNN provides a cross of real world news and DK characters in 'live' interviews driving the storyline. While players understood that they were participating in a game, the real world components made the game, and the movie, much more personal and believable. Dark Knight took the additional steps to stage live election campaign rallies in major cities and a live scavenger hunt that ended with the participants receiving one-of-a-kind swag.

While we agree that a comparison of the Dark Knight ARG and Gemini Division's is apples to oranges, the same basic gaming 'rules' apply. This can be best illustrated by a comparison of two ARGs that are similar in scope and managed by the same administration: Heroes and Gemini Division.

The Heroes experience started with the same fan sign-up at NBC. Fans who chose to participate received text messages and cell phone calls from show Characters. The kickoff ARG on MySpace also found fans logging in to view a character profile, Samantha48616e61, which directed them to her ARG blog, which provides additional links to other ARG websites as well as multiple puzzles and videos.

Here the delta between Heroes and Gemini becomes evident: While the Samantha blog has multiple videos the TINAG concept is maintained. No branding on the Heroes vids, nor is there a direct branded link back to a broadcast site. Further exacerbating this divergence are the two additional 'viral' videos also released on Gemini Division on Wednesday. Beyond the issues of the videos being labeled viral they were also preceeded by the standard generic advertisement that leads the regular series videos.

Fans were again baffled and upset that these self-titled 'viral' videos were posted on the main production website instead of being buried on the web, "to find as one would expect in an ARG". Feedback we received in our research for this article ranges from the simple, "NBC just don't get it..."[Powerdog], to the succinct, "Today we learned about how the term 'viral' can fail miserably and create apathy and distrust in viewers"[DaJackal]. What driving factors cause the Heroes game to be successful and the Gemini game to have such a poor launch?

As a long time Gary Larson fans, the Far Side cartoon of army generals hunched over a table with the caption "But gentleman, what if we had a war and everybody came!" sprang to mind as soon as we reviewed this week's NBC Universal Digital Studios release of the Gemini Division immersive content alternate reality game. The following is our updated version of that cartoon:

Touching back on our post of July 26th and contrasting that corporate culture against the release of this new ARG it is evident that a disconnect exists somewhere in the system. We expected to see an experience similar to Heroes and were both concerned and surprised when it was released with the issues that we've reported in this article. With the buzz importance placed on this series, the first of it's kind, allowing such an obviously controversial ARG launch is not in the best business interest of NBC. That it may be intentionally designed to create this controversy could harm more than help this fledgling form of entertainment as fan apathy for the game may be taken as apathy for the program content.

We encourage everyone, even the apathetic, to continue the Gemini experience. It may be that a disaffected employee wanted to harm the show, or possibly mutant deaf ninja hacker penguins broke the ARG ...whatever disappointment you experienced this week give it a little longer; remember, this series is the first of it's kind and there are bound to be oppses.

Geoblocking, Sony, Gemini Division, and You

Geoblocking or at least the concept of it is nothing new though it is becoming more prevalent. Video streaming and the Olympics made this abundantly clear. Jack Kapica of Globe Technology online wrote,

"If the Internet represents instant global communications, watching the Olympics online is still based on a pre-Internet mindset. Yes, you can watch the Olympics in streaming video, but you can do so only from a very limited number of sources, each chosen by geography."

I agree with Jack Kapica's statement. The broadcast of TV and new media content is still utilizing a pre-Internet mindset in many ways and there is definitely room for change. It appears that there is both a growing implementation of geoblocking as well as discontent over its use.

For the Olympics it was all about protecting and maximizing ad revenue and this is one of the central issues in the matter. It does ultimately come down to money and companies like Sony appear to be convinced that they can make more money with a pre-internet mindset than without. So far they haven't been shown different.

While geoblocking or geodistribution can be generalized as being about return on investment or even more succinctly as being about money, it is more complex than it appears to be on the surface. This is particularly so with the distribution of multi-platform content.

For those of us who like the Final Fantasy video game franchise, we still have to wait for each release. The games are released in Japan first and then separately to other territories, the upcoming release in 2009 being no exception.

It is important to keep in mind that multi-platform content is not just digital, web distributed video and it encompasses more than a video game. Instead, it also consists of alternate reality gaming websites, graphic novels, mobile and ARG interaction, etc. This content spans mediums and technologies and therefore is much more complex to distribute than a game like Final Fantasy. It has more moving pieces, involves different technologies, and may even feature a video game as part of the content.

That being said, I don't think we can fault producers like Electric Farm Entertainment from seeking to push the new media edge and make a profit in doing so. When there are companies like Sony who offer big money for international distribution rights, production companies will continue to sell distribution rights to them. Even if we put that aside, production companies simply don't have the distribution clout and resources needed to distribute multi-platform content globally. At the moment they still need larger companies like Sony.

The distribution plan for Gemini Division is as follows: Electric Farm Entertainment is the main content producer for Gemini Division, NBC has purchased the rights to distribute in the US, and Sony has the international distribution rights as detailed in this press release. Gemini Division is currently being released in the US and should be released to other territories pretty quickly (Sony did pretty well in distributing Afterworld globally last year). Sony realizes that there is money to be made in distributing good content to a global audience and they are willing to put up money to do so.

I do think that we should be using the Internet to move towards a global community and not to build more walls through geoblocking and territory release of content as mentioned by Modern Geekery. However, I believe that this will require new thinking, new infrastructure, and innovative ideas. We need to rethink how to do media in a digital media age.

I don't think that the current divide is the result of erecting new walls, but instead I think the structure we see today is built upon the walls of yesterday. Further, I think these walls exist due to real world distribution capacity and matters of scale, particularly when it comes to translating and adapting multiplatform content to other territories. For change to happen I think we need a competitive alternative to drive and bring about change.

For instance, consider traditional broadcast TV. What worked in the past, isn't working like it used to. The traditional ad arrangement, where broadcast tv provided free tv and the viewer watched their ads is breaking down. Vcrs, DVD's, DVR's, cable, satelite, Netflix, etc have changed the landscape. This competition is driving broadcast networks to emphasize new ways of doing media (albeit sometimes slowly). Advertising is shifting increasingly away from tv and moving toward online markets. They are beginning to change because there are competitive alternatives.

Another good example is Blockbuster and the local video store in comparison to Netflix. We used to have to go to the store for our movies and we used to have to pay late fees for them. If it wasn't for a competitive alternative this would still be the case. However, Netflix acquired distribution channels and capacity and leveraged the internet to change the landscape dramatically. Amazon in response ended up trying to start up a similar online service, but it simply hasn't been able to keep pace with Netflix.

We need the "Netflix of multi-platform content distribution" to shake up "Sony-type Blockbuster's". Sony may want to consider taking the initiative before someone else does it for them. Hopefully they see this need and are already making steps toward change. It is a prime time.

We also need shows like Gemini Division and companies like Electric Farm Entertainment to push the edge and to create new content as well as to make a profit (which they have already accomplished with Gemini Division and Afterworld). It is a particularly important time not to "shoot the messenger" and not to cut out production companies who are trying to bring us new media.

It is a transitional time and unfortunately sometimes we have to wait. Perhaps while we do, someone will start up the "NetFlix of multi-platform distributed content". Maybe it will be you!

Category Confusion: Nielsen, Gartner, The Federal Census Bureau, and You!

Aaron Smith has a very interesting post over at Asmedia titled, “Hollywood’s Web Shows: The Future of Television”?

In his introduction, he references a Nielsen report. At first glance, the report appears to be evidence that would back the executive point of view (as presented by Doug):

“Even with all that we (the technically savvy internet user) believes is occurring online, the last six years show that it just isn’t happening”.

Aaron’s entry is insightful and helpful (as usual).

That said, I do think that Aaron’s preliminary introductory analysis falls prey to the dangers of conventional generic reporting (in this case by Nielsen). Initially, I read the report summary the same way. What caused me to dig deeper was the fact that my reading of the Nielsen report seemed to fly in the face of other statistics. Upon closer investigation, I realized that this appears to be yet another case of what I call “Category Confusion”.

Like Aaron, I mistook Nielsen’s use of the phrase “traditional TV” to mean broadcast TV. Yet Nielsen’s use of the phrase appears to include broadcast TV, Cable, satellite, and possibly even DVD; all within one large group. Nielsen’s footnote describes their use of traditional TV to be “live viewing plus any playback viewing”.

The generic categorization of competing distribution channels as presented in the report is not overly helpful in evaluating current media patterns. In this case, it may even be detrimental because a casual reading of the report reinforces traditional old-media thinking while at the same time failing to contribute all that much toward an accurate, in-depth evaluation of the existing media landscape.

This is unfortunate. Nielsen could do better. I believe they should do better. For instance, this report could have analyzed the trends of broadcast TV as they relate to and are contrasted with: Cable, Netflix, DVD in general, mobile viewing, online viewing, gaming, etc. This would be very interesting and helpful. However, I do not think that this type of report is likely to be published to the public by Nielsen.

You may ask, “Why not?”

I believe the answer is that the conclusions presented would not be favorable to or for broadcast television as well as...Nielsen.

Before we move on to Gartner, there is another report Aaron linked to from Nielsen. This report appears to have a tendency to leave victims in its wake as well.

The title is, "Nielsen: Viewers Prefer TV set to Internet". The first paragraph reads:

"When asked, 94% of adults in the U.S. who subscribed to cable or satellite television said they preferred to watch television content on their televisions sets as opposed to via the Internet."

Nielsen's report pits "television sets" in a mutually exclusive death match against the "Internet". However, this is not a cut and dried "either" "or" scenario.

This brings up the question, "What is a "television set"?

I too prefer to watch my media from the comfort of my couch. However, my "television set" is a 720p projector. All my media, whether it be DVD's from Netflix, streaming video from Netflix/broadcast networks, streaming music from Pandora, Afterworld from Vuze, etc., etc. can be viewed from the best seat in my house in a home theater like setup.

If I want to view my content or play PC video games (with my wireless 360 controller) while working out on my elliptical, I can. If I want to browse the net and read technology using voice recognition from Vista while I work out, I can do so.

If I want to view video on the go, I can. I have many options available to me but I still prefer to watch from the comfort of the couch. While this is the nicest and most enjoyable experience, this doesn't mean that I don't use and very much enjoy the other options available to me as well.

Nielsen's report summary states, "'With so many viewing options now available via digital technology, it's more important than ever to understand how people are consuming media,'" said Susan Whiting, exec VP at The Nielsen Company".

How ironic!

I believe that I would be in the 94% who prefer media from the best seat in the house. However, my "Television Set" has changed dramatically and from it I am able to exercise all the viewing options referred to in the quote above. Unfortunately, Nielsen's old categories and use of old-media terms prevent them from truly understanding how I (a 2.0 viewer) consume media.

Unfortunately, Nielsen appears to still be stuck in the past and locked into a certain old-media type mindset. I think they need to rethink categories and update their terminology to match the existing landscape. As a side note, I believe that Comscore (mentioned in Aaron's post) does a much better job at capturing the consumptive patterns of the 2.0 viewer.

Gartner:

The report summary we are looking at from Gartner is titled, “Gartner Survey Shows Consumers Predominantly Using the Internet for Email and Search”.

This report title and summary appear to indicate that email and search are mutually exclusive to "internet video" and "social networking". I think the report fails to understand what the internet is and how email and search relate to applications like "internet video" and "social networking".

Without search it would be hard to access the content that is on the internet.

Though the amount of channels on TV has greatly increased, the viewer is still able to “surf” through available channels to try to find content they can settle down with. Not so the internet. With the internet there are so many different websites to choose from you can’t just change the channel; you must engage in search (though there are a few websites like Stumbleupon that let you “surf” the web without directly engaging in search).

“Search” for the internet is similar to switching “channels” on a TV. They are both services that connect users with content. Yet, switching channels for the TV and searching on the Internet, are not ends in and of themselves.

As with search, the same with email. Without email, there would be no standard, universal method for communication on the internet. Without email it would be hard to communicate between social applications.

Search and email are not mutually exclusive to either "internet video" or "social networking". I believe that many people perceive search and email to actually be the internet itself. Content like "internet video" or services like "social networking" are seen as separate from the network/internet that connects users with content.

I use the internet (network) to acquire content or services. The primary tools at my disposal are email and search. Therefore as internet usage increases and new content abounds, search and email will increase as well.

These observations about search and email make the following statement in the Gartner summary rather anticlimactic:

“Despite the huge growth in new applications such as Internet video and social networking, most consumers indicate the main reason for accessing the Internet is to use e-mail and gather information, according to a survey by Gartner Inc”.

When there is a huge growth in new applications, wouldn’t the need for search increase?

When there is a huge growth in social networking applications, wouldn’t email be all the more practical and pervasive?

In the Lord of the Rings, there was one ring that bound the rest. The Internet has at least two.

In analyzing reports like this, it is important to distinguish between basic services like email and search and the content and services they enable and support. A failure to do this results in category confusion. In the case of the broadcast corporate executive view described by Doug, this confusion leads to a “most people only use internet for email” type of fallacy.

An interesting report would delineate out these distinctions. It would also break down major content categories, major services, and basic tools as well as time spent on average for these various activities. It would examine these categories over time. It would describe how these major categories relate to one another. This would be more concrete than subjective opinion and be a more accurate gauge of the new consumer.

Census Bureau:

I believe the corporate broadcasting executive view as detailed by Doug is further maintained by filtering recent and new phenomena through a mesh of incongruent historical categories. The broadcast executive view of the Census Bureau charts (as outlined by Doug) are a good example.

Consider Netflix. Their company profile describes itself as:

“the world’s largest online movie rental service, providing 8.4 million members access to more than 100,000 DVD titles plus a growing library of over 12,000 full-length movies and television episodes that are available for instant watching on their PCs.”

Here are some more quotes from their page:

“If you stacked every movie Netflix ships (on average, 2 million DVDs a day) in a single pile, the stack would be taller than Mt. Everest within a week.”

“Netflix has more than 100,000 titles and more than 55 million DVDs total. Every three months, Netflix members rent more than 95% of the 100,000 titles in the Netflix library. On any given day, more than 46,000 of the 100,000 titles available at Netflix are in distribution.”

“Netflix members say they rent twice as many movies per month than they did prior to joining the service. Netflix members add 2 million movies to their Queues every day.”

Obviously NetFlix has used the web to make a significant difference in how viewers view their content. If it is true that Netflix members rent twice as many movies per month than they did prior, this is time away from broadcast TV."

Now here is the question, “What category do you put the NetFlix into?”

Most likely it would be in the product/service information category, if it was even categorized. Other examples are Blockbuster Online, Itunes, Vuze, torrents, etc. Viewers purchase, download, select, and acquire content via the internet and then view it completely separate of the internet. The internet becomes the means to obtain the content, which can then be viewed offline.

This type of internet activity is one which has a significant impact on viewer behavior. However, the Census Bureau categories are not able to give us insight into how that activity is changing. Its categories limit it to being able to give us some information about a very newly hatched and very much still emerging development. The streaming TV/Movie experience.

Further, I think the categories given by the report are self-limiting. I don’t think that most users consider Youtube or user generated content to be in the TV/Movies category.

Also, consider gaming. What category does the Xbox360 or the PlayStation 3 fit into? These console game platforms now use the internet. However, the gamer doesn’t make a conscious decision, “Hey, I am going to pull up the internet in my web browser so I can play my XBOX 360 game”. For many people, Internet or online activity is associated as something a user does from within a web browser.

With the increase of “always on” broadband connections, this is also true for a number of PC games and even MMORPG’s. A gamer buys the game, installs it, and starts to play. The internet and the game communicate behind the scenes. The gamer may not even think about the fact that they are online when they are playing the game.

Bottom line: Broadcast networks and primetime TV are not competing only against online streaming video. They are competing for their viewers time, attention, and ad views.

As I wrote in a different entry, cable increased channel and content selection. VCR’s and later DVR’s allowed viewers to skip commercials. Personal computers, internet and sites like youtube, myspace, torrent sites, and mobile devices all further diversified the market. Suddenly, media consumers can choose what they watch, when they want to watch it, and can do so wherever they choose.

Video games are becoming more popular and the viewer is now free to spend their limited time on what interests them most. DVR is estimated to have ~25% market penetration and it looks like this may increase with the recent Cablevision ruling.

TV time does continue to increase, but it does so at the expense of broadcast TV.

This brings us to…

You:

Looks like we need:

1) More analysis,

2) Additional reports that are detailed and nuanced toward accurately measuring new activities and content, and

3) your comments!