Will Strictly go on forever? #AskAFuturist

We all need a little light in the current times of pandemic and political betrayal. So I thought I'd tackle this tongue-in-cheek question from Fiona on my #AskAFuturist thread on Twitter: "Will Strictly go on forever?"Fiona is referring to Strictly Come Dancing, the somewhat oddly named BBC TV series, now at 17 seasons and named the most successful reality TV format by Guinness World Records. In a world of on-demand entertainment it remains appointment viewing, attracting on average over ten million viewers per episode in the last few seasons. Can it continue this run of success?The answer to that question brings in the subject that is most obsessing me at the moment: choice. And it raises the most challenging issue for futurists in making predictions: the unpredictability of human taste and behaviour.

The choice explosion

Today we have more choice about what we watch and when we watch it than ever before. Not only that, we have more choice about how we spend our leisure time than ever, albeit arguably with more leisure time to spend as well. The natural assumption from this is that each form of entertainment might take a smaller share of our total time. And this largely appears to be true. As the internet rose, so linear (broadcast) TV consumption declined around the world. But what's fascinating as someone who watches and listens to very little real-time/broadcast content* is just how dominant broadcast media remains in the UK. According to the 2019 Ofcom report, 89.4% of us listen to the radio and spend an average of almost three hours a day listening. 88.5% of us watch television, and spend an average of over three hours in front of the gogglebox. 71% of that viewing is still accounted for by the primary five broadcast channels and their subsidiaries.Compare these figures to those for Netflix consumption and you see just how dominant the old forms of media remain. The average Netflix subscriber (about 40% of UK households) consumes about 7 hours of content per week.What can we take from this? Strictly has achieved an incredible feat by growing its audience over the seasons to the level it is at today. But it has done so in the context of a choice explosion that is only just beginning. We are at, as the saying goes, the b of the bang. While there are many more options out there, most people have yet to migrate their tastes away from the dominant broadcasters, if they ever will. Though the trend is most pronounced amongst the youngest viewers, as ever. If they maintain their behaviour as they age, consuming more short-form and on-demand content, the strictly could suffer.

Tomorrow's celebrities

This said, it's hard to discount the idea of continued success for Strictly. After all, part of its appeal comes from the stars who they attract to appear on it. The careful curation of these celebrities ensures that the show attracts a broad demographic. If that successful curation were to continue, and new generations of stars continue to value an appearance there, then it's possible that the show could sustain its success. But, I think this is where the show may struggle.The media through which the new generation of celebrities are emerging are very detached from the traditional world of carefully curated linear programming, or even reality TV. The style is very different and so is the audience. Creators are often auteurs with complete control of their output and image. Their audience comes from all across the world. Appearing on a show like Strictly might be a big leap for them, and one that doesn't necessarily hold that much appeal. If you have ever watched YouTube stars appear on 'normal' television then you will know what I mean. Even the most famous and polished frequently look awkward and out of place. It's just a different discipline. Learning it may not hold sufficient reward unless the financial prize is very large and the crossover with your own audience is significant.

Format shift

Strictly and other popular linear programming is likely to face another challenge in the next decade as we go through another format shift and mixed reality becomes more accessible. Exactly how and when this happens is unclear, but as I have written about in the past, the physical and digital worlds have been coming closer together for decades. Blending them in a form of augmented reality interface seems like a very obvious next step.This creates enormous possibilities for programming that is somewhere between television and computer gaming. People have demonstrated systems where you can be the director of your own show, for example, using the huge amounts of raw footage captured by the falling cost and rising pixel count of cameras. That's a very different experience from the passive consumption of television, but it might appeal to some.Whatever happens, there will be a new dimension of choice and competition for established formats in the future.

Re-use and recycle

If I were to be forced to bet on what will happen with Strictly, I would guess it follows a fairly traditional TV arc. Ratings start to decline, and after a couple of years of them falling the BBC decides to stick the idea back in the vault to resurrect at a later date when the time seems right - much as it already did with Come Dancing when it added the 'Strictly'. When will that happen? Well, the numbers are still strong. I would guess we have at least another three to five seasons of Strictly yet before they decide to pull the plug.##*Apart from all the shows I appear on. Clearly I listen to/watch you all, every week, without fail...

Is immersive entertainment the future?

The Rolling Stones are releasing a 'radical, new immersive concert screening concept' based on their enormous 2016 gigs in Cuba. So what is 'immersive entertainment', and is it the future?

Physical and digital

Going to a gig is immersive entertainment. It engages all of your senses, for better or worse. If you're screaming at your favourite teen idol or thrashing around in the mosh pit, you are 100% in the moment. This is true of almost any intense form of physical activity or engagement. It's why these things are so good for us: they take us out of ourselves, and focus us wholeheartedly on what we are doing.The very need to describe something as immersive entertainment is for me an acknowledgement that this activity might not be as consuming as such a physical experience. That somehow through effort, design, or technology, the provider is trying to make something that might not be truly immersive into an experience that matches these physical-world highs.In the case of the Rolling Stones concert, this seems to amount to a combination of best-in-class audiovisual systems combined with some set dressing and live entertainers. These things together will not transport you back in time and across the ocean to Cuba. But they are designed to create as close an experience as you can get in your local concert venue.Critical to the success of this endeavour, will be the response of the rest of the audience. If they get into it, and you are surrounded by people having a good time, singing and dancing, then it will probably be very successful. If they treat it like a trip to the cinema, then it's unlikely to be close to immersive.

Future options for immersive entertainment.

Today the state of the art for group entertainment is ultra HD projection. But in 10 years time? Imagine the same event, with everyone gathering in a concert venue. But instead of the images being projected on a flat screen, you can see a virtual Mick strutting up and down the stage. He is indistinguishable from the real thing, until you remove your smart glasses and he disappears.Maybe you decide to stay home and watch the gig, and your living room is transformed into the concert venue. You lose the live atmosphere, but drinks are cheaper and there are no queues for the toilet.Neither of these options will stand up to the real thing. But with concert prices high and access limited, these sub-experiences are likely to be popular nonetheless. In this age of deepfakes, concerts need not be limited to current or living artists either. Why not time travel and see Springsteen at the Hammersmith Odeon in 75 (that's where I'd go), Nina Simone in '64 (yeah, I'd also go there) or Johnny Cash live at Folsom Prison (yep).

Experience economy

The idea of the experience economy is not new. It can arguably be traced back to the Tofflers' FutureShock in the 1970s. But it is true that a rising proportion of our expenditure is going on things we do rather than things we buy. In this world of FOMO, offering people the chance to get to a version of gigs that they missed - perhaps by decades - or couldn't afford to otherwise access, will likely prove popular. And in 10 years time, it might be the way that many of us experience live music.But the real, physical experience will always command a premium. Because for the foreseeable future, it will remain the richer experience and the only one that is truly immersive.

Convergence is not (only) the future of gaming

Hideo Kojima is a gaming legend. His plans to integrate gaming, film, music and more, formed the basis of a quick interview I gave this morning on the sofa at BBC Breakfast.It’s not a new idea that these different media might converge. In some ways it is happening already: look at the integration across the Marvel Universe where comic stories weave in and out of games, TV shows and films. Or how film promotion now starts with experiential games seeded around the internet. People have long considered ways to make the cinema experience interactive — a group ‘choose your own adventure’. And the natural conclusion of high-end games is total immersion in an experience of cinematic reality via VR.But I don’t think this is what Kojima is suggesting. Rather, what I interpret from his few words, is that a single, multi-threaded narrative might be explored through multiple forms of media combined in a single entertainment package.This makes a lot of sense with the convergence of entertainment delivery on a small number of devices: phones, tablets and streaming boxes. With some caveats, and the support of some high-end servers in the background, these devices are capable of delivering anything from a simple page of text to a rich VR experience.Why not utilise this breadth of capability to engage us in many different ways? It’s certainly one answer. But I don’t think this is the biggest opportunity in the future of gaming.The largest single segment of the gaming market, following years of rapid growth, is mobile gaming. Within that, the largest phenomenon in recent years is Pokemon Go. Though limited, I think this AR experience points to what will be the most popular and pervasive form of gaming.

Lessons for tomorrow

Imagine real life, gamified through the overlay of the physical world with digital sights and sounds. Virtual places, people, objects and creatures that you can interact with as though they were real. We’ve acclimatised to people speaking to themselves on wireless headsets. People running around the streets chasing Pokemon seemed to generate a lot more smiles and good will than criticism and questioning. I think we’ll adapt to people playing in the streets in their own virtual world — eventually.The revenue streams are certainly there to drive such an industry. Imagine an advert you have to interact with to win a game. Imagine that advert is a virtual character with a rounded virtual intelligence. This is a far cry from today’s billboards: this is hyper-targeted, totally personalised, and fully interactive.Whether you like the sound of that or not, it’s coming.