Does New Technology Distract The Audience From The Main Event?

Mindshare’s Huddle session tabled a great debate: is new technology distracting us (the audience) from the main event?

In our case we were there to understand reactions to the movie on the cinema screen, but much of the debate was relevant to other ‘events’ around which social media and virtual experiences are growing – sporting occasions and concerts for instance.

And so a nervous huddle began in Mindshare’s Mcluhan room, kicked off by five provocative statements from the experts who kindly agreed to contribute to the session we ran with film promotions experts Filmology.

We’re exceptionally gratefully to our speakers, who made their respective cases succinctly and passionately: Sarah Brierley from media research experts Crowd DNA; John Ridley from Filmology, a man passionate about his cinema; Alastair Simpson, our very own answer to Silicon Valley from Yummi the apps and social gaming company; Nigel Gwilliam, head of digital at the IPA and a thoughtful iconoclast about the tsunami of change affecting media consumption; and Tom Johnson, considered analyst from social and contextual trend watchers Trajectory Partnership.

From the opening comments there were clearly established camps: those fearful of negative change affecting a treasured experience and very concerned by the ‘thin end of the wedge’; and those more open but guarded as to the consequences. There’s something very precious that needs to be guarded in cinema – our roomful of experts showed caution rather than advocating gung-ho rush into the arms of technology. Whatever happens, we mustn’t let it spoil the magic of the moment – cinema is still a sacrosanct space for storytelling.

No-one argued against the view that social and virtual technologies were an irretrievable part of our lives – today it’s the exception not the rule when we’re not online or connected in some way. We’ve recently seen an almost semi-ironic backlash - restaurants offering a discount if you leave your phone behind at the door, and hotels selling themselves as wifi-free places to truly unwind.

We’ll be seeing more of this kind of segmentation: it started on the trains with ‘quiet’ carriages. Every provider of a public event will have to think of how to optimise it for those who have restless fingers, and how to keep it pristine for those who do not want interruption.

A distinct line was drawn early on in our debate between what happens before the movie starts, and what happens during. Clearly augmenting preshow advertising and trailers with the right material raises issues, but our huddle was more open to experimentation and fun before the main event.

The technology savvy guru in our midst made the very important point that just as technology can be deployed to create ‘interruptive’ experiences, so it can be used to create calm – simply by turning off the wi-fi off or blocking mobile signals. It’s down to creative use of the technology resources available to us to achieve the control we need.

Our audience heard that some may want to participate/ be involved in a continuous way with the main event, and that some shows - maybe even movies - would undoubtedly emerge that encouraged the use of other devices in order to see extra dimensions to the ‘main event’ itself.

From a strategic perspective, it was observed that the blending of cinema with digital technologies may unleash changes that are as yet unforeseen – the economics and very dynamics of the music, news and porn industries have been changed massively through digital technologies.

We had a very lively 45 minutes of good humoured debate. At the end, a quick vote was taken by a show of hands. Six voted to resist the march of technology into the cinema at all costs, the remainder voting to proceed, but cautiously and with a willingness to retreat. No-one advocated wholesale, uncontrolled adoption of every technological marvel available.

Massive thanks to everyone who was there. Please continue the debate below, and in future!

DCM