Phil Orlins knows everything about producing TV in three dimensions. The ESPN producer has captured the undulating greens of Augusta National and the flying motor bikes of the X-Games for ESPN’s 3D channel. But he can only guess how well his shows resonate with viewers. That’s because 3D audiences are so small they can’t be measured by Nielsen’s rating system.
“The feedback on The Masters was fast and furious. You could go on Twitter at any moment, and there’d be comments coming in every minute about 3D coverage,” said Orlins while giving a tour of a production truck at this summer’s X-Games. “But then you go to some other events where it’s pretty quiet.”
Orlins’ problem is that fewer than 115,000 American homes are tuned into 3D channels at any one time. That’s less than a hundredth of the 20.2 million-strong audience that saw television’s highest-rated show NCIS this week. 3D viewership is so tiny that The Nielsen Co.’s methods are unable to capture any meaningful data about viewers’ programming preferences.
ESPN 3D is one of nine 3D channels that launched in the years following the late 2009 release of James Cameron’s Avatar. The 3D blockbuster won three Oscars and ranks as the highest-grossing film of all time, garnering $2.8 billion at the global box office.
Avatar was supposed to change everything. Enthusiastic television executives expected the movie to spur 3D’s transition to American living rooms, boosting sales of new TVs and giving people a reason to pay more for 3D channels.
That never happened.
Only 2% of TVs in the U.S. are able to show 3D programming, according to the most recent data from research firm IHS Screen Digest. That’s about 6.9 million sets out of 331 million. After this year’s Christmas buying rush, IHS expects the number of 3D-capable televisions installed in homes to jump to 19.3 million, mostly because 3D viewing technology is being built into most new large-screen TVs. But even with the jump, 3D TVs will amount to less than 6 per cent of all sets.
“We’ve learned with every passing day that we were ahead of the curve further than we thought we were,” said Bryan Burns, the business leader for ESPN 3D. “We hit the on-ramp earlier than we realized at the time.”
Why 3D television hasn’t become a national craze is a mystery to some in the industry, considering the wide acceptance of 3D movies at theatres. But 3D content is expensive to produce, and as a result there’s not a lot of it. Some of the content isn’t very good. Some people find the special glasses required for 3D TV uncomfortable. And many wonder whether it’s worth the extra cost.
“It was kind of fascinating to me, but it’s not all there,” said Tim Carter, a graphic designer in Sarasota, Fla., who bought a large, high-end 3D TV with other high-end features last year for about $1,800.
Today, the average 42-inch 3D television costs about $900, according to IHS. They contain a high-tech chip and software that translates 3D video feeds into the right- and left-eye images that create the 3D effect for people wearing the right glasses. In some cases, special glasses can cost an extra $50 or so.
Watching home movies on disc requires a 3D Blu-ray player that can cost another $120 and each disc set purchase runs around $27, according to IHS. (3D movies are usually bundled with other discs.)
While operators like DirecTV and Comcast Corp. don’t charge specifically for channels like ESPN 3D, they are generally bundled in packages that require other spending. At DirecTV that means a $200 high-definition digital video recorder and $10 per month for HD service. For Comcast, that means a minimum $65-per-month digital starter package with HD service costing another $10 a month.
All that for the privilege of watching 3D at home in your pyjamas.
Due to the cost, Carter said he’s mainly sampled free 3D movie trailers provided on-demand by his cable TV company. A trailer for the latest Transformers movie didn’t make him more enthused. “One of the robots pops out at you, and it felt forced. It’s not consistent,” he said, noting that 3D effects aren’t noticeable much of the time. He said he’s not knocking the technology, he’s just disappointed with the way it’s being used.
Nowadays, 3D is just one feature on TVs with bigger screens. It is usually grouped with other upgrades that include motion-smoothing technology and light-emitting diodes that are smaller, more energy efficient and display colour contrast better than traditional liquid crystal display sets. It’s difficult to isolate how much 3D adds to the price tag of an individual set because of this bundling, but according to IHS the average 42-inch set with 3D is about $200 more than a similar-sized one without. Some 3D TVs, however, can be found for cheaper than others of the same size.
“There’s very little direct consumer demand,” said Tom Morrod, a TV technology analyst with IHS in London. Some consumers buy TVs which happen to have 3D, but they don’t bother to get the glasses needed to watch them, he said.
“They don’t see a value with it. Consumers associate value right now with screen size and very few other features.”
Sluggish demand for 3D on TV has caused programmers to hit pause on rolling out new shows and channels.
In June, DirecTV turned its 24-hour channel, n3D, into a part-time network that only shows special event programming like the Olympics, in part to avoid the heavy use of reruns caused by a lack of new material. Last year, AT&T dropped ESPN 3D from its lineup, saying the $10 per month cost to subscribers wasn’t justified given low demand.
So far, ESPN 3D is the most aggressive network in terms of shooting original 3D productions. It has about 140 per year. It also has the widest distribution, according to research firm SNL Kagan, no doubt because popular sports network ESPN includes it in negotiations with distributors. Though few own the hardware to watch the channel, ESPN 3D now pipes into 60 million U.S. homes.
