October 13, 1994
Scott Foster
Scott Miles
David Snyder
Andy Zellner
Nearly everyone in the United States is familiar with the video cassette rental process. This currently consists of walking or driving to the nearest rental store (which may be many miles away), finding a parking spot, hoping that no one else has rented the movie you wanted, searching through dozens of categories for a particular videocassette, standing in line at the checkout counter, getting back home, and finally loading the cassette into your VCR, which is often a feat in itself. In addition, you must own a VCR in the first place, you must apply for a membership at the rental store, and someone has to bring the videocassette back when you're finished. This system leaves ample room for improvement.
Cable TV services have grown explosively over the years and offer some advantages over video cassette rental. A video cable system can be wired directly to a user's home or business. No VCR is needed, though many cable operators require that a signal descrambling box be attached to the subscriber's television set. This technology is already well known and accepted by the public. Cable companies can easily turn on or off any individual connection, which presents a flexible method of access control. This connection usually has a bandwidth exceeding 200MHz, allowing dozens, if not hundreds, of channels to be accessed at any given time. Two way communication is also possible (though the returning signal is limited to a mere 30MHz or so). The subscriber receives a theoretically crystal clear signal, for a reasonable monthly fee. But aside from the increased selection provided by the extra channels, the problem of getting a specific movie at a specific time still remains.
Recently however, cable operators have gone a step further and offered "pay-per-view" services (also referred to as PPV services), in which the subscribers can choose whether or not they wish to receive a particular show on a certain channel. If they request it, the cable operator can descramble the signal to that individual cable box, and will also bill that user individually. People who are not interested in the show will not be charged for it. Of course, this service offers only the few shows preselected for display by the cable company, and the user must still wait for the preset time for the movie to start. The installation of high-bandwidth capacity cable systems and developments in satellite broadcast do suggest that the limited selection is not a insurmountable obstacle.
The problem essentially boils down to video on demand - getting what people want to watch to them when they want to watch it. In an ideal world, a person would just think of what she'd like to watch, and then be able to watch it. Since we haven't evolved to that level yet, many tasks are involved in the process today, but they can still be designed with the user and final goal in mind. People should be able to choose exactly what they would like to watch from a reasonable selection without much hassle in finding what they want. Actually obtaining the movie after it is selected should be as quick and simple as possible. The same should hold true for playing and watching the movie. The cost of watching it, whether it be the hardware required or the cost in dollars, should be as small as possible as well.
The variety of people who would use this service encompasses a huge range. Basically anyone who would purchase a television set or watch a movie in the theater is a potential user. This includes people from all economic backgrounds, all educational backgrounds, and people of all ages. About the only real restrictions on the users of the service are the ability to pay and age restrictions for minors - though they too could be users with the consent of their parents. Anyone who could see and hear (and also possibly blind and deaf people) would be interested in a video on demand system. Such a large user population must be taken into consideration in the design of a video on demand system, forcing it to be as simple, general, and helpful as possible.
The measurement of retrieval time depends upon the interface for video-on-demand that is chosen. For persons wishing to obtain video-on-demand through purchasing or renting tapes, retrieval time consists of the time required to arrive at the video store, the time required to obtain the video, and the time used in operation of the VCR. For those who rent, retrieval time must also include the time required to prepare the tape for return and the time required to return the tape. The time required to obtain the video can broken down further into the time required to decide on a video, the time needed to find the video among the possible selections, and the time needed to pay for the video. These final three categories apply also to pay-per-view services, with the additional requirement that the user must wait for the preset time for the video to start.
Ease of selection is a very important issue in the interface for video-on-demand. Evaluation of ease of selection is based upon measurements of time and effort required to find a predetermined video. Ease of selection also depends on availability of a predetermined video. This criteria for evaluation cannot be measured by one number; a conglomerate of factors must be used to provide an overall measurement. Time and effort used in finding a selected video are measured by the amount of time required to retrieve a predetermined video - a factor already measured from the first category. For video cassettes, availability is measured, for a predetermined movie, by counting the number of tapes in stock and by counting the total number of tapes a video store has in circulation. In pay-per-view systems, the selection is fixed by the number of channels the cable company provides and the movies offered on those channels.
Expense of system is a non-typical criteria used to evaluate the current interface. Since the video-on-demand is a profit oriented service, expense plays a crucial role in determining the usability of the system. Gauging expenses in the interface provides a method for measuring the hardware and software required to use video-on-demand. Expense in the current video-on-demand interface involves two key categories: a device to play the video, such as a VCR, and the device on which the video is stored, such as a tape. Evaluation of the VCR is based on rental and purchasing prices. Evaluation of the tapes is based on the cost of video rental. Pay-per-view systems typically require descrambler boxes rented from the cable company, the cost of the cable subscription, plus additional costs for each movie selected via pay-per-view.
The focus of experimental evaluation focused on video rental stores. To test the current system, each group member personally performed the action of renting a movie. The measured data consisted of the time to rent a movie (travel to store, find selection, checkout, traveling home, start the tape in the VCR, rewinding the tape, and returning it to the video store), the selection available at the video store and the ease of finding each movie, and the expense involved in order to watch the movie rented.
A movie was randomly selected to be rented after browsing through the video store. The experiment was performed on a Tuesday night, traditionally one of the least busy days for the video store. Each member went to a different store to obtain unique data. A single movie was actually rented to test the time for the complete operation. For further data, four movies were selected to experiment upon (Jurassic Park, Ace Ventura, The Blues Brothers, and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes). These selections were used to determine the time spent in finding both new releases as well as movies that have been out for some time. The data collected was of the time to find the movie and its availability.
In the interviews with previous pay-per-view users, questions were asked about the time required to find the movie on the pay-per-view channel, ordering it via telephone, and waiting for the movie to start. Ease of choice was evaluated by asking how hard it was to find and order the movie, and how many choices were available.
As a last point of the analysis, focus was given to expenses that are required in order to obtain a movie and be able to play it within ones home. Obviously, a VCR is required to play a video tape, so the cost of some VCRs is included for those individuals who may not have one and want to watch movies in their home. The cost analysis contains both rentals and Pay Per View.
The results from four independent testers and two pay-per-view users were averaged and are as follows:
In the case of pay-per-view, the time necessary to find the movie and then order it were small in comparison. Given the extremely limited selection, however, the time to find the movie seems excessive. The time required to order the movie was a positive point, with one user commenting 'it's nice, you just call the number and it knows automatically exactly which movie you want, bills you, and programs it for you.' But the overwhelming factor against pay-per-view is the time required to wait for the selected movie to begin.
The selection of movies in video stores was not completely visible in the data. Movie availability was towards its peak because it was a Tuesday night rather than a Friday. The data still points to a problem in the selection though. The problem is that some stores either do not carry the movie (one store did not have Attack of the Killer Tomatoes made in 1980's) or do not have them in stock yet (Jurassic Park was not available in one store). In our experiments, we left these samples of data out of the average because it would conflict with our relevant data of having the movie available. One of the main problems that video rental stores have is maintaining a movie available to everyone who wants it. Even on a Tuesday night, 90% of Jurassic Park was already rented out. But video stores do offer the widest selection available today, with a figure of about 9000 being claimed by a Blockbuster employee.
In comparison, the selection available via pay-per-view is terrible. Even though a number of different movies are offered during the month, the total available within a reasonable amount of time to be considered 'on-demand' is limited by the number of channels the cable company provides, which was only 3 in this case. Pay-per-view does have the positive feature of broadcasting real-time events such as boxing matches, which is something that will never be available via video rental.
The ease of finding a desired movie is reflected in both the time and selection available, but is also heavily influenced by the layout of the store or pay-per-view channel. The layout of the video store into topical areas such as new releases, comedies, etc. facilitate finding certain videos. Although, when a movie is not offered in the video store, the only way to discover that fact is by searching through all the possible categories it could be under, or asking a sales person. Being able to see the video box covers, actors, and movie summaries also helps to find a movie when the exact title desired is not known. The current state of pay-per-view channels as a kind of continuous loop of the movies offered can become tedious. One user called it 'a mind-numbing experience unless you know the name of the movie.'
Beyond just the availability of the movie, an individual must also work around the hours that their local video store is open for business. This assumes that there is a video store close enough to the individual that they would make the trip to get a movie. The return of the video may add a late charge if the individual does not return the tape on time.
As far as the cost of video-on-demand systems, most people seem to be able to pay for everything that is required. The vast majority of Americans already own VCRs in their homes and the additional cost of a movie rental is not very high, considering the functionality that is gained by having a physical video cassette - the ability to pause, rewind, or watch the movie multiple times. Pay-per-view would require some kind of device from the cable company, which most people don't have - relying instead on cable-ready TVs and VCRs. The monthly rental charge of such a device is relatively low, however.
The analysis of the two current video-on-demand systems evaluated show that each has it's own merits and shortcomings. A melding of the two video-on-demand services currently available, selecting the best points of each, and improving on them should yield a very usable system. Coupling the information traditionally available on video-cassettes and layout that increases the ease of selecting a movie in a rental store with the hassle-free delivery and ordering of pay-per-view an electronic video-on-demand system could provide the best of both worlds.
This next generation of video-on-demand service we envision would allow the user to, with the push of a few buttons on a cable box, flip through a few short menus to select a title and have that request sent over the cable. It could then electronically bill the customer a preset amount, activate a particular channel on his cable, and then play the video on that channel. By augmenting the cable box with graphics capabilities, the user would have powerful browsing tools, allowing graphics images from the video or even actual video clips along with the movie description, actors, etc., and even automated searching facilities.
Based on the evaluation of the current systems, the following guidelines should be taken into consideration in the new system:
While these recommendations will be followed in the design of our system, they should not be seen as set in stone. They do provide very valuable guidelines in developing a new system, but re-evaluation of the guidelines during the project will be done, and new problems or criteria may arise that warrant changing priorities. With that in mind, the product designed by this evaluation should be a pleasure for the end user to interact with.