What the failure of 3DTV means for the industry

After a series of high-profile flops, 3DTV appears to be on its last legs. So what does this mean for the media industry? Raymond Snoddy looks at the impact for everyone, from broadcasters to TV manufacturers.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, head of the DreamWorks studio, was a true believer and beguiling in the clarity and simplicity of his arguments.

There was, he argued, an inevitability about the forward march of 3D in both cinema and television. It was the next big thing, akin to the move from black and white to colour. And didn’t everyone know that colour was denounced as a gimmick at the outset, but within five years wasn’t every film being made in colour?

The world existed in three dimensions so why would anyone be content to stick with a mere two? It didn’t make any sense – and as for the small problem of the glasses, they would become a fashion item. You would go to the optician and get your 3D glasses alongside your reading glasses. Everyone would soon have them, and carry them, because that’s the way people would naturally watch entertainment in future and 3D would be on all devices.

It was year zero – 2009 – the year that marked the rebirth of 3D, banishing all memories of the cardboard green and red glasses and embarrassing movies of the past.

It was also the year when Katzenberg and James Cameron cooperated on their big 3D movies, and Katzenberg’s Monsters vs. Aliens and Cameron’s Avatar launched to public acclaim and box office success.

Ah yes, box office success. That was the really neat thing about 3D; you could charge at least a third more for the tickets and cinema-goers apparently didn’t mind. For the industry, price differentiation was the thing. You could charge a premium price for a premium product.

As the room service waiter is supposed to have said when delivering a bottle of the most expensive champagne to George Best in bed with Miss World at the time: “Where did it all go wrong?”

Two years later Katzenberg was already talking about “the heart breaking decline” of 3D, although he remained a true believer. The industry had disappointed its audience with poor quality movies – and at least in America that audience had spoken with a loud voice. But it was just a case of the terrible twos.

After all, Kung Fu Panda 2 was doing great business in 3D in China.

“It’s not in any fashion, shape or form the demise of 3D,” the DreamWorks executive insisted.

That was two years ago and since then further blows have rained down on the toddler.

When offered the choice between 3D and 2D versions of the same film, in some cases the majority have been opting for the old fashioned 2D version.

But even here there is no escape from the ravages of artificial 3D style filming. The opening half an hour of the 2D version of the otherwise compelling Great Gatsby was ruined by endless, distracting fast zoom shots that were obviously only there because they were thought necessary for the 3D version. The technology was dictating the style of the content.

And then there is television. Last month ESPN dumped 3D after three expensive years because the uptake of the sets was not happening fast enough.

This month, while promoting Wimbledon in 3D, the BBC was at the same time announcing that it had decided to pause 3D production from the end of this year until 2016. It sounds like a case of letting everyone down gently and that 3D has turned into a visual cul-de-sac.

Sky has been untypically rather quiet about its 3D venture, which launched in 2010, although the satellite broadcaster has said that around 500,000 have subscription packages that give access to 3D and that 300,000 people saw some of the Olympics in 3D.

At the very least the take-up rate must be very disappointing for a company that has been a successful innovator over many years – everything from digital itself to high definition.

There were always signs of trouble, or some awareness that at the very least, 3D would not be suitable for all types of programming.

When senior Discovery executives came to London a couple of years ago to promote their 3D launch they conceded they would not be showing their Deadliest Catch series in 3D – because of the danger of making the audience seasick.

It is difficult to be definitive about why 3D has not taken off in the way its promoters expected. It’s probably a combination of small, rather human things.

With movies, price could be a factor but it is also clear that many people do not like the visual experience and actively avoid it.

With television, the glasses may not seem like a big deal but it’s probable that they are, however small the inconvenience may seem in rational terms.

The fact that in most cases you have to sit in a particular spot to gain the maximum effect is also probably a factor.

The relative lack of interest from consumers may appear irrational, but how often do you hear anyone say “I’ve just got a 3D TV and it’s marvellous,”?

Unlike HD, which was obviously going to be a winner, there was always a question mark over 3D. But could the industry have predicted in advance that 3D was not exactly going to be a wild success?

As Richard Marks, director of Research the Media, argued in a Newsline column this week, it is very difficult to research and predict what people actually do as opposed to what they say they want.

The issue will come to the forefront again soon as manufacturers try to sell us all 4K, the next generation of high definition television.

The successful arrival of 4K could be another nail in the coffin of only-with-glasses 3D television. It could be a straight substitute.

However, set manufacturers have a problem. The HD sets they already provide broadcast an image that is satisfactory for most human eyes. They might have to wait for the replacement rather than the must-have-it now market. And that could be a long time.

Financially stressed broadcasters holding expensive 3D cameras and equipment in storage may be a little wary of rushing headlong into the next television revolution.