Broadcast workflows – the challenges and a REAL solution

Last time out I accused the supply market of using smoke and mirrors to confuse customers about IT-based broadcast workflows. 

Now I'm going to look at the real playout challenges and then reveal what I think the key to success is. My argument is based around this:


QUESTION: Can you reduce the complex requirements of modern broadcasting into a handful of computers?

ANSWER: Yes. But you must understand the workflow and meet the presentation requirements of complex channels.

The real challenges faced by channels and playout centres today are probably the following:

• Integration,
• Inter-operability,
• Reliability,
• Redundancy,
• Having staff (and often systems integrators) that have a hybrid knowledge base of IT and broadcasting.

Making purchasing decisions in isolation would be another.

A final, and very important one, is thinking that they have to have a "best of breed" product for every element of their workflow.

It's a total misconception

Often channels and playout providers would be better off using 30% of the functionality of combined solutions rather than 5% of highly specialised ones.

Ultimately the key is expertise and understanding how a workflow fits together.

It's important to be able to know when to use and when not to use dedicated broadcast hardware.

Similarly, it's crucial to understand how to reduce costs and increase simplicity without reducing flexibility.

Right now, the broadcast supplier market is moving from proprietary broadcast application devices to standardised IT hardware and software.

And even when they claim not to be, the core of most products is IT based anyway.

The functionality of today's broadcast standard AV cards is not only good enough for other parts of an IT based broadcast workflow, they are often also at the heart of the majority of video server solutions, so arguments about not trusting your business to a PC with an AV card are null and void.

What is 'broadcast quality'?

There are also arguments about "broadcast quality" and how IT cannot meet this exacting standard.

Unfortunately there is no universally agreed definition of that term, and there are so many parts of a workflow that have an impact on quality, that it is more likely that no-one will be able to define the weakest link in the chain.

In my mind, "broadcast quality" is a term that should be applied to the quality of the moving pictures and sound, determined by the complete chain from camera to receiver.

So, whether you're looking at playout automation or automated playout, IT and broadcast equipment are determinants of "broadcast quality".

Which brings us to the important question: Do television channels and playout providers need application specific - well designed - "engineered" solutions? Yes.

But in my opinion this can be achieved with an expert mix of IT and broadcast equipment rather than by focusing only on the broadcast equipment.

Otherwise, going back to the Animal Farm analogy from last time, this is like saying "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Which might explain why some manufacturers create special labels like "premium" and "enterprise class".

Now, of course, any playout system has to be as close to perfectly reliable as possible. It must be capable of integrating into existing facilities. It must be flexible in operation with other systems. And it must be easy to install and maintain.

So what is the key to success?

To my mind it is:

1. A combination of the systems integrator and the inherent knowledge of IT systems and the integration challenges these impose.
2. Embracing open standards, cross company collaboration and implementing a mix of products to suit a workflow, not creating a workflow to suit a product.

Ultimately it is this that will determine the true attribution of value to the component parts of a project.

By doing this we can move away from describing projects as IT based broadcast workflows and, as the architectures continue to merge over time, just call them workflows.

It will also help users to move to a process of measuring price performance on a combination of initial cost, running cost, support, and future flexibility.

Which makes an awful lot of sense to me.

All broadcast workflows are already IT based, get over it.

If you believe what you read in TV industry marketing bumpf, IT-based broadcast workflows are new, exciting and different. What a load of nonsense.

All broadcast workflows are IT based either by way of their components or the software driving the equipment. End of.

There are loads of misconceptions in the world of broadcasting, and this is one of the biggest.

There are both suppliers and users of broadcast equipment who are either ignorant of the extent that IT and Broadcast equipment have merged or have a vested interest in deliberately providing misleading information.

It’s almost as if, they have some vain hope that like a modern day King Canute they can hold back the tide of innovative technologies.


Think about it. Is there really a workflow where no IT equipment is involved?  Does anyone today provide television content without the use of a computer, computer equipment or computer software? 

Does anyone still provide fully live channels, using only broadcast equipment, hand written running orders, hand written invoices and so on? I doubt it.

So, by extension, all broadcast workflows must therefore already be IT based.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I will define what a broadcast workflow actually is. That way we can conclude why it is IT based.

A broadcast workflow can be broken down into four stages – Make, Manage, Play, Record.

1. Make – create material for playout, including filming, encoding, and editing.
2. Manage – schedule and move material that is playout ready – including storage and asset management, as well as traffic and rights management
3. Play – provide content to consumers (linear, on-demand or mobile).
4. Record – log what has been provided to consumers, including commercial logs, media logs, billing records and compliance.

Let’s take the first two stages of the workflow, whether files are created directly on the camera, or encoded from a tape. This entire process uses computers with or without A/V cards, and/or video servers (which are, at their core, a computer).

How about the last stage? The links to billing, traffic and rights management are unlikely to be performed with pen and paper only. 

As for on-demand and mobile, by definition they must be in the digital and IT domain.

Which just leaves playout. Let’s examine linear playout in particular. 

For linear playout there are only two set-ups – and they both have IT at their core.

• Category 1 - Playout automation - A channel is set up with a broadcast vision mixer and separate peripheral equipment that is triggered by a software automation program.  The playout automation solution uses video servers to play file content, has separate graphics systems, triggers and a master control switcher under automation control to mix content and switch between live sources. A playlist will typically consist of device names and start/stop commands or template calls.

• Category 2 - Automated playout - A channel is set up without a broadcast vision mixer and a computer or series of computers replaces the peripheral equipment but it still uses software to control the automation. Automated playout uses IT equipment with Audio/Video cards to play out file content, uses software to perform the functions of a master control switcher and triggers a router to switch between live sources. A playlist will typically consist of primary and secondary events with software commands, and sub-streams are used instead of devices.

If we agree that this is the case, why on Earth does the supplier market spend so much of its marketing time and effort NOT explaining how the solutions work, how they integrate and how you can use them?

Instead they try to point out limitations in the alternatives, not with facts, but with opinion, scare tactics, or an appeal that systems have some special form of engineering excellence when, in reality, there is a blend of IT and broadcast specific equipment in both set-ups.

Some suppliers are even schizophrenic, one day supporting one method and the next another.

They’re a bit like the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: Four legs good two legs bad, becoming two legs good four legs bad and let’s hope the other animals don’t notice.

It’s perverse and doesn’t do anything to help the supplier market or its customers.

There are many more exacting playout challenges to be faced, but I’ll cover those in my next posting. I’ll also give my opinion on what the key to broadcast workflow success is. Be warned. Some people may not like it.

While I conjure up those words, just remember this: If you look “under the hood” of all the broadcast workflows in the market you’ll see that they are all already IT based, so why would anyone pretend otherwise?


Mark Errington