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