Warner asks: Is The Live Media Event Dying? inspired by this post from Steve Rubel wondering the same thing.

Live events aren’t going anywhere. Of course Warner knows this, he works in the theater business, where they do everything live. That’s where the energy of a performance can reach through to the audience in a way that nothing on celluloid or bits and bytes ever can replicate. Performances on the screen can be too polished, too perfect, too plastic. So much that it creates an entirely different and predicatble experience. At a play, you don’t know if/when the actor will stumble on a line and recover. In the movie business, it’s simply take 42, 43, 44 …

I’m not saying plays are better than movies for everybody. Some people don’t want to see actor imperfections and live mistakes. Setting mistakes. Some people don’t want to read the book either, so they see the movie. For some people time is more important than experience. Of being a part of something. Being there.

Last night, since we don’t have TV, I “watched” the Miami Heat win the NBA finals against the Dallas Mavericks at NBA.com. There wasn’t any video, only a score that kept being refreshed to the page along with text describing who got fouled, who scored points. While doing that, we watched Syriana on the TV. Multi-tasking a live TV event wasn’t nearly the same as watching it on TV or better yet, watching it in person and hearing the squeak of the player’s shoes as they moved up and down the floor. The pounding of the basketball against the wood, the roar of the crowd, the vendor hawking his wares.

Each experience less than the other and the further that technology took me away from being physically present at the event, the less exciting and fulfilling the experience.

And then there’s podcasting vs. live streaming
Take podcasting vs. streaming live. I will have been hosting a two hour web radio show each week for 289 weeks as of this Friday. That’s a little more than six years when you count in some vacation time here and there. I’ve also hosted and/or co-hosted over 100 podcasts, since back to the first couple months that podcasts took off. Over this time I have learned the difference between the two types of broadcasting is significant. Consider the following of which you cannot do with a podcast:

- involve the audience immediately and immersively
- welcome the people in attendance (there is no attendance in a podcast)
- be able to identify repeat listeners during the show when they are there live
- live call-ins, text message, email readings, IM reacting to the content in real time
- 3D virtual show and tell and/or education using unstaged, unplanned participants a la Second Life
- real time suspense and drama

I could go on but I think the point is clear: live streaming provides various opportunities a podcast doesn’t. And can’t. One might think h/she could have the best of both worlds by live streaming the show and then making it available via podcast, but I’ve tried that too and it’s more often than not missing something. Perhaps it is the life — the live — that makes the show. Whatever it is, a streaming live show that is also delivered as a podcast doesn’t provide the same experience. Especially when those audience participation moments come across via the podcast. Maybe part of this difference is that the listener feels cheated because they weren’t there.

So when people ask if live events will go away or be replaced by technology I’d answer a most resounding no. Podcasting greatest strength in non-live events — the portability — is also its greatest weakness when it comes to live events.

Simmah down, podcasters
Now before you run for the comments section flaming me for dissing the sacred podcasting cow, wait. I’m not saying podcasting isn’t as good as live streaming, I’m saying it’s a different experience. One will never replace the other. Apples and oranges. Podcasts can provide unique experiences that live radio cannot. Time can be compressed in a podcast. Ask Warner how much shorter a play could be if it were recorded and refined? Time would be saved. A podcast can remove the “ums”, “ahhs” and awkward pauses and silence. Not all pauses and silence are there for dramatic effect.

But then time can be even further compressed in blogs. You’ve heard that argument before, and it’s a compelling one. Why listen to podcasts when we can read the same thing in much less time on blogs? This is just one of the many downsides to audio and video content versus text. I would counter that with live content that there is less emphasis on time. Not that time isn’t important, of course, but less emphasis. What do you think?

Rubel questions that there aren’t as many “Who Shot JR” moments (referencing Larry Hagman’s most defining role in the TV show Dallas) as there used to be. I disagree. How many people tuned in for the last episode of Friends? What about the final episode of 24? What about all the Reality TV climaxes? Rubel fingers events like crowning the next American Idol as “communal experiences” and says that they’re “more rare these days.”

How many people PVR’d these events vs. sat down with their families to watch them? There is a difference spending family time together watching a live event — reacting in real time to something none of the others knows what happens — versus watching something that was PVR’d. As for place shifted with a Slingbox? In the future that might be a way to involve a family member who is away — perhaps in the military or on a trip and then have some live webcam stream integrated. We’ve seen all this technology on TV before, but here we are in 2006 and yet don’t have the experience.

How many surf the internet to cheat and find out what happened (west coast vs. east coast) on shows before they air ‘live’?

(starting to miss not having TV and it’s only been 1 day we’ve been without)

There are just as many live events on TV, particularly in sports and in reality TV shows as there were in the Dallas days. The difference is we didn’t have the internet the way we do today. This is where I think the next level of TV has a huge opportunity and invitation. Perhaps that’s why I’m less excited about television today. I’m discouraged that there isn’t more live interactive elements to the TV experience. It feels underwhelming as to what it could be providing.

The future of ‘live’ TV
I want to be able to have a seamless internet/TV experience in my living room. Despite Microsoft claiming otherwise, Media Center just isn’t there yet. Yes, improvements are being made. Progress. But somebody please tell me why we still need to have all these boxes surrounding our TVs? Why do we need to have multiple devices which essentially do the same thing in every room? Why isn’t everything wireless and operable by voice and/or hand gestures or ___? Why are we still pressing buttons?

Should take a picture of the pile of remotes we have. It’s our own private electronic landfill.

I realize most of this technology to achieve this dream TV scenario is already here but unfortunately it’s a long way from becoming mainstream. Speech recognition is barely passable in its current form, upgraded in the last few years from practically useless. Remotes still come with just about everything you buy. I already have a remote, it’s in my brain. Figure out how to tap into that instead of giving me another piece of dust-inviting plastic.

Microsoft seems to be on the right track, although they move like they’re pulling the weight of the world behind them. What they are doing with video advertising in their labs will bring us closer to true live interactive TV than we’ve ever been before.

Perhaps history will one day look back and see Bill Gates final brilliant move at Microsoft being branding everything they do with the word ‘Live.’ Awe, power and magic from that four lettered word.

• ‘proprietary’ content blocked from live streaming video during PDC 2005 keynote
• Down at the end of audio street, it’s Podcast Hotel!
• Seattle.gov starts podcasting
• Why podcasts don’t compete against satellite radio … yet
• Entertainted exists
• The Wizzard of Pods, Libsyn being acquired